Link: Putin using media and military to make headlines in Syria.
Over the last two years, the world has become a much more dangerous place. Russia seems intent on presiding over the dismemberment of Ukraine, Libya has become a magnet for jihadist groups, Iran, arguably the world's foremost exporter of terrorism, has been given open access to purchase modern military equipment, and ISIS seems unstoppable as it racks up battlefield victories in Iraq and Syria. What the international situation calls for is the arrival on the scene of a true leader. Barack Obama does not have the courage or the conviction to be that leader, and the various European Heads of State are permanently frozen in "surrender" mode. Whose left? What about Vladimir Putin? Sure, I'm disturbed by Russian aggression in Ukraine, but the situation in Donbas and Crimea does not present a current threat to world peace. Let's take a serious look at the danger posed by the continued existence of the Islamic State for Iraq and al-Sham, or the Islamic State for a Caliphate in the Levant, or ISIS/ISIL, or whatever name suits you. Simply put, this Islamic Extremist Organization is about Death.
ISIS claims to be singularly focused on the creation of a new Islamic Caliphate. The most recent Caliph was embodied in the form of the last Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. What is a Caliph? A Caliph is the spiritual leader of the Islamic World, and the Caliphate is intended to be whatever geographical area that accepts his total authority. At times, ISIS has claimed to be only interested in Syria, but that interest was expanded to include Iraq, upon the ill-timed withdrawal of U.S. troops. Now we here the area of interest has expanded to include "The Levant" which is a colonial term used to describe Syria, Lebanon, Israel/Palestine, and Jordan. The reality is, ISIS is a plague with world domination goals. The organization has spread to Africa, South America, Southeast Asia, Europe and the United States. Quite a reach for a group only interested in The Levant. As for its Modus Operandi, ISIS flourishes through the spread of tyranny, domination and mass murder. The tools most frequently utilized are terror and fear. Its ability to spread to so many disparate communities, including the Philippines and Kenya, allows ISIS to spread its message like a virus. How are they able to convince so many young people to join? ISIS provides the one thing missing in the lives of young people from the poorest corners of the earth: hope. For the individual, ISIS provides sustenance, and in many instances, a little money to send home. And at the end of the day, anyone who dies in pursuit of the Caliphate, will most certainly qualify as a martyr. For the hundreds of thousands of unemployed, hungry young men in places like Cairo, Nairobi, Damascus, Sana'a, the Balkans, Chechnya, Tajikistan, Somalia, and Libya, ISIS puts a gun in their hands and gives them not only something to do, but something powerful to belong to.
Again, anyone one of a dozen nations, if properly motivated and mobilized, could defeat ISIS on the present battlefields of Iraq and Syria. Even with their F5s and stolen Iraqi Migs, I believe the Iranians could vanquish ISIS. In fact, a coalition of Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E. and Kuwait could probably get the job done as well. Ideally, the United Nations would sponsor the creation of an international military coalition to destroy ISIS. There was a day when the President of United States would ideally fit into the role of political leader of this coalition, given the amount of diplomatic relationships and influence the United States enjoys. But it doesn't appear that our current President is up for the job. Just when it appeared that no one was willing to take the job, Vladimir Putin announces that Russia has decided to aggressively re-engage in Syria, in opposition to ISIS. Vlad puts his money where his mouth is; Russian heavy tanks, artillery, and necessary troop-support equipment has started to arrive in Latakia, on Syria's northwestern coast. If the Russians so chose, a dedicated offensive campaign against ISIS, that utilizes whatever resources are necessary (and with the "no troops on the ground" assistance from the U.S. and Europe), would eventually crush ISIS. But the elephant-sized question in the room, is can we allow Putin to become that leader of an international coalition to defeat the worst of the bad guys, when in the first paragraph, we identified Putin as one of the (lesser) bad guys?
In every post on this blog that focuses on Ukraine, I have made my pro-Ukrainian stance obvious. I'm not Ukrainian, nor do I have any close Ukrainian friends. I support Ukraine simply because they are a nation attempting to become more free and democratic, that has been invaded by its more powerful neighbor. I will continue to support Ukraine, but I'm willing to avert my gaze for a period of time, if it will encourage Putin to dive head-first into the battle to defeat ISIS. I recognize this evil organization for what it is, and what it has the potential to accomplish. The time to smash ISIS is now, when it is still basically in its infant state. Can you imagine the kind of conflicts that are raging in Iraq and Syria, also happening in South Africa, Argentina, and Thailand? Unfortunately, its not as far-fetched as it was a year ago. Someone with international influence has to stand up and build a coalition to destroy ISIS, and it needs to happen now. Since no one else wants it, as far as I'm concerned, Putin has my total support to assume the job.
Showing posts with label Kuwait. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kuwait. Show all posts
Friday, September 18, 2015
Monday, March 23, 2015
Just A Sign Of The Times......
Link: Did Obama Threaten To Shoot Down Israeli Warplanes?
Its so hard to believe, but 2016 is almost upon us. For me, the years pass so quickly, now that time has become so valuable. When I was younger, the term "middle age" was always confusing to me. It was meant to describe people in their 50s and early 60s (if my memory serves me correctly), but I found myself doing the math each and every time, and coming away perplexed. When I was fourteen, my middle-aged Grandmother was fifty-nine years old. Since she was considered middle-aged, shouldn't she expect to live to be somewhere near one-hundred twenty? She departed for her just rewards at around seventy-three years old. So "middle age" will just remain one of those quaint American terms that are impossible to translate. But my age is immaterial to this post. Hillary Clinton's age is a more apropos topic. How old is Hillary nowadays, anyway? Wikipedia says she's sixty-seven. Wow; the years have been rough on Hillary, and I mean no disrespect. Washington DC is a stressful town, and the cost of doing the nation's business can always be seen on the faces of the veterans like Hillary. Poor Mitch McConnell; his turkey neck will on occasion catch a gust of wind and blow him backwards five feet. I was going to say that Barbara Mikulski has been in DC so long that you can't really determine her gender, but actually, she arrived that way. Not too many pretty faces in Congress nowadays, and some of it is self-inflicted. I'm still totally confused about John Boehner's merry-go-round of tans. Sometimes he's Bahamas brown as a coconut, and the next day he will be lightly bronzed like a peanut. What a circus.
Circus or not, 2016 is almost upon us. I am so appalled at the state of affairs in the United States that I try to avoid addressing the long-term. My view is, that from an integrity perspective, its never to late to start doing the right thing. If the 2016 President-elect, with a compliant Congress, decides to tackle the national debt, how exactly do you get your hands around twenty trillion dollars? Don't forget, all of those outstretched hands aren't going anywhere, and the first elected leader who realistically attempts to attack Entitlements had better have thick skin. The only way to effectively attack the national debt is with targeted, substantial cuts to Entitlements. The current Administration has presided over the most massive growth in Entitlements that this country has ever seen. Commercials are produced by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services that encourage people to examine themselves to look for evidence of partial disability. There can be no doubt that the Obama Administration is determined to create a population that is solely dependent on the government from cradle to grave. I can't think of anything more un-American. But President Obama can't run for re-election, and currently he's singularly focused on trying to salvage his legacy by sponsoring a Nuclear Power Treaty with Tehran. Is there an American in this country who actually believes that the government of Iran will abide by a Treaty it signs with the U.S.? Since they've been so quick to remind us of our "Great Satan" reputation, why would we expect them to feel bound to any agreement they might sign? But you can rest assured that a Treaty will be signed. President Obama likes to pretend before the cameras that his tough-as-nails negotiators won't accept a weak or unverifiable Treaty, but you know just as well as I do, that their marching orders were to conclude a Treaty first, apply window dressing second. Welcome to Operation Salvaging the Legacy.
Out here in the Texas Hill Country, I rarely hear rumors. But believe it or not, we do get the internet down here deep in Red State territory, and so close to the Cradle of Texas Liberty, the Alamo. Per the link that I have provided above, a few weeks back a Kuwaiti newspaper (with a respected Editor) published a report, claiming that sometime in 2014, the Israelis were considering a pre-emptive strike against the Iranian nuclear research facilities, and that U.S. President Barrack Obama threatened to intercept and shoot down any Israeli planes who attempted such unilateral military action. We have learned only recently that negotiations with the Iranians were ongoing in 2014 as well. What have we become? And how was it accomplished in such a short period of time? I have no choice but to assume that the approval numbers for Obama, which currently reside near fifty percent, are accurate. Is it possible that fifty percent of the American public believe that Obama has done a good job with the economy, and has made the United States a safer place to raise our children? I'm old enough to remember when Jimmy Carter was elected President in 1976; it was the year of the bicentennial, and the year my beloved Guinea Pig, Snowball, died of heat stroke. I remember my father supported President Gerald Ford for re-election, but many people, especially in the younger subgroups, were visibly excited about a Carter Presidency. Many folks associated the Republicans with two negative issues: the Vietnam War and the Nixon scandal. Governor (of Georgia) Jimmy Carter promised an entire new direction.
Carter was victorious is one of the most astonishingly close elections in our nation's history, and his was true to his convictions. His policies were implemented at the earliest opportunity. And before you could say "oops", the country began to come apart at the seams. The economy was stagnant and refuse to grow. Our foreign policy appeared to be crafted as the day went on, with a public opposition to all terrorism but a behind-the-scenes willingness to talk to anyone. By the time an attempt to rescue the American hostages at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran had failed, even Carter seemed to understand that his ideas just weren't in sync with the American people. he did run for re-election, beating Senator Ted Kennedy for the Democratic nomination, but he was thoroughly trounced by the former Republican Governor of California, Ronald Reagan. The reason we have taken this little trip down memory lane, is because I can recall that many people who originally voted for Carter in 1976, had not trouble admitting that they had made a mistake. Just as many Republicans were quick to acknowledge their support of Richard Nixon as an error. In fact, being big enough to own up to a bad political decision seems very American to me. But we have undergone a tremendous Sea Change in the last twenty years. The country could be burning to the ground around us, with Al-Qaeda chopping of heads for lunch at the local Dollar General, and folks would still vote for Barrack Obama. This explains why, with a twenty trillion dollar deficit, a confused and bumbling foreign policy, a military that can't provide basic health care to its veterans, and a small group of elite politicians who continue to live above the law (Hello, Hillary). I guess its all just a sign of the times......
Its so hard to believe, but 2016 is almost upon us. For me, the years pass so quickly, now that time has become so valuable. When I was younger, the term "middle age" was always confusing to me. It was meant to describe people in their 50s and early 60s (if my memory serves me correctly), but I found myself doing the math each and every time, and coming away perplexed. When I was fourteen, my middle-aged Grandmother was fifty-nine years old. Since she was considered middle-aged, shouldn't she expect to live to be somewhere near one-hundred twenty? She departed for her just rewards at around seventy-three years old. So "middle age" will just remain one of those quaint American terms that are impossible to translate. But my age is immaterial to this post. Hillary Clinton's age is a more apropos topic. How old is Hillary nowadays, anyway? Wikipedia says she's sixty-seven. Wow; the years have been rough on Hillary, and I mean no disrespect. Washington DC is a stressful town, and the cost of doing the nation's business can always be seen on the faces of the veterans like Hillary. Poor Mitch McConnell; his turkey neck will on occasion catch a gust of wind and blow him backwards five feet. I was going to say that Barbara Mikulski has been in DC so long that you can't really determine her gender, but actually, she arrived that way. Not too many pretty faces in Congress nowadays, and some of it is self-inflicted. I'm still totally confused about John Boehner's merry-go-round of tans. Sometimes he's Bahamas brown as a coconut, and the next day he will be lightly bronzed like a peanut. What a circus.
Circus or not, 2016 is almost upon us. I am so appalled at the state of affairs in the United States that I try to avoid addressing the long-term. My view is, that from an integrity perspective, its never to late to start doing the right thing. If the 2016 President-elect, with a compliant Congress, decides to tackle the national debt, how exactly do you get your hands around twenty trillion dollars? Don't forget, all of those outstretched hands aren't going anywhere, and the first elected leader who realistically attempts to attack Entitlements had better have thick skin. The only way to effectively attack the national debt is with targeted, substantial cuts to Entitlements. The current Administration has presided over the most massive growth in Entitlements that this country has ever seen. Commercials are produced by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services that encourage people to examine themselves to look for evidence of partial disability. There can be no doubt that the Obama Administration is determined to create a population that is solely dependent on the government from cradle to grave. I can't think of anything more un-American. But President Obama can't run for re-election, and currently he's singularly focused on trying to salvage his legacy by sponsoring a Nuclear Power Treaty with Tehran. Is there an American in this country who actually believes that the government of Iran will abide by a Treaty it signs with the U.S.? Since they've been so quick to remind us of our "Great Satan" reputation, why would we expect them to feel bound to any agreement they might sign? But you can rest assured that a Treaty will be signed. President Obama likes to pretend before the cameras that his tough-as-nails negotiators won't accept a weak or unverifiable Treaty, but you know just as well as I do, that their marching orders were to conclude a Treaty first, apply window dressing second. Welcome to Operation Salvaging the Legacy.
Out here in the Texas Hill Country, I rarely hear rumors. But believe it or not, we do get the internet down here deep in Red State territory, and so close to the Cradle of Texas Liberty, the Alamo. Per the link that I have provided above, a few weeks back a Kuwaiti newspaper (with a respected Editor) published a report, claiming that sometime in 2014, the Israelis were considering a pre-emptive strike against the Iranian nuclear research facilities, and that U.S. President Barrack Obama threatened to intercept and shoot down any Israeli planes who attempted such unilateral military action. We have learned only recently that negotiations with the Iranians were ongoing in 2014 as well. What have we become? And how was it accomplished in such a short period of time? I have no choice but to assume that the approval numbers for Obama, which currently reside near fifty percent, are accurate. Is it possible that fifty percent of the American public believe that Obama has done a good job with the economy, and has made the United States a safer place to raise our children? I'm old enough to remember when Jimmy Carter was elected President in 1976; it was the year of the bicentennial, and the year my beloved Guinea Pig, Snowball, died of heat stroke. I remember my father supported President Gerald Ford for re-election, but many people, especially in the younger subgroups, were visibly excited about a Carter Presidency. Many folks associated the Republicans with two negative issues: the Vietnam War and the Nixon scandal. Governor (of Georgia) Jimmy Carter promised an entire new direction.
Carter was victorious is one of the most astonishingly close elections in our nation's history, and his was true to his convictions. His policies were implemented at the earliest opportunity. And before you could say "oops", the country began to come apart at the seams. The economy was stagnant and refuse to grow. Our foreign policy appeared to be crafted as the day went on, with a public opposition to all terrorism but a behind-the-scenes willingness to talk to anyone. By the time an attempt to rescue the American hostages at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran had failed, even Carter seemed to understand that his ideas just weren't in sync with the American people. he did run for re-election, beating Senator Ted Kennedy for the Democratic nomination, but he was thoroughly trounced by the former Republican Governor of California, Ronald Reagan. The reason we have taken this little trip down memory lane, is because I can recall that many people who originally voted for Carter in 1976, had not trouble admitting that they had made a mistake. Just as many Republicans were quick to acknowledge their support of Richard Nixon as an error. In fact, being big enough to own up to a bad political decision seems very American to me. But we have undergone a tremendous Sea Change in the last twenty years. The country could be burning to the ground around us, with Al-Qaeda chopping of heads for lunch at the local Dollar General, and folks would still vote for Barrack Obama. This explains why, with a twenty trillion dollar deficit, a confused and bumbling foreign policy, a military that can't provide basic health care to its veterans, and a small group of elite politicians who continue to live above the law (Hello, Hillary). I guess its all just a sign of the times......
Sunday, March 8, 2015
How effective are the Armed Forces of the Persian Gulf? (Part II)
Links A. Global Firepower Ranks the Armed Forces of the World
B. World's Largest Armies, According to Global Security
C. Business Insider's 35 Most Powerful Armies
I am fascinated by the Saudi Arabian Armed Forces. This is a lean, mean, fighting machine, and most people outside of the business of war, don't seem to have a clue. Since getting involved in two ill-advised wars against Israel, the Saudis have kept a very low military profile. The Saudi military was content to follow the U.S. lead in the first Gulf War, although Saudi units were in the thick of the fighting and acquitted themselves well (especially armor). The Royal Family, closely associated with every aspect of the military take full advantage of the situation to create a sense of patriotism that the Kingdom had never previously experienced. Saudi soldiers were welcomed home with parades and children waving that confusing green flag with the sword and all the spaghetti. The Saudi's have 315 front line M-1A2 Abrams heavy battle tanks ready at the drop of a pin, and 200 more in storage. If necessary (however unlikely), they have 290 French-made AMX-30s ready to go, which have been re-conditioned for desert warfare and is a tight little tank in its own right. The Saudi forces are more than adequate when it comes to artillery, both mobile and stationary, and if you recall, during the first Gulf War, Saddam Hussein started tossing some Scud missiles in the direction of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Since then, the Saudis have been determined to find a system similar to the Israeli "Dome", which blocks any incoming missiles. Until that technology becomes available to the Kingdom, they are more than sufficient with anti-missile and missile intercept systems. The Saudi ground forces are hardy and pride themselves on their regimen and training. The Air Force continues to fly U.S.-made F-15S bombers and F-15C fighters, but the mainstay of the Saudi fighter squadrons is the Typhoon Eurofighter. The purchase of the Eurofighter came as a bit of a surprise and involved some controversy with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who somehow was involved with negotiations. The U.S. had been hoping that the Saudi Air Force would upgrade to F-16s, F-18s, or possibly even F-35s. The Saudis can mobilize 250,000 troops in a matter of days. I read a news report recently which hypothesized that the Houthi issue in Yemen exposed a weakness in the Saudi military. In a way, the comment is accurate. If the Saudis wanted to military intervene in Yemen, I have no idea how they would pull that off. All of their armor is pointed in another direction, and PCS'd on the other side of the country. Fortunately, a handful of elderly Eastern European women with gas could wipe out the Houthis, so I don't think the Saudis really have much to worry about. I do think its a bit of a waste, the Saudi military being all shined up, trained, and ready to go, with the world's most modern equipment, but not having a war to fight. By the way, its important to remember that the stature of the military in the Kingdom has very little to do with any perceived threat from the outside. The impressiveness of the military is a direct reflection of the Royal family.
The military of the United Arab Emirates is similar in many ways to that of Saudi Arabia. Just to show off, lets name all seven of the Emirates: Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Fujairah, Umm al-Quwain, Sharjah, Ajman, and Ras al-Khaimah. The UAE is an amazing country and I highly recommend it to everyone except couples who like to kiss in public, and Gay folks. (Gay and like to kiss in public but want to stay in the Gulf? Try Oman.) The beaches are magnificent, the hotels and modern developments are awe-inspiring, the de-salinization plants are state-of-the-art, and the Russian prostitutes are everywhere....at least at night, in the lobbies of hotels. If you think you have seen wealth in Beverly Hills or the Hamptons, you haven't seen anything until you've visited Dubai. The Emiratis spend a great deal of money on the military and on the intelligence services. The UAE Air Force is exceptional. The government has approached this branch of the Armed Forces with a sense of import. Currently, the UAE flies roughly 60 recently refitted F-16S and 50 French Mirage 2000-9, which have also been refitted with the latest hardware. The Air Force has a superior support network and a budding Helicopter capability. The training is also exceptional, and the pilots have been receiving some valuable experience over the skies of Iraq and Syria, as part of the U.S. coalition of allies. In the late 1990s, the Emiratis chose a heavy battle tank other than the U.S.-offered Abrams. The UAE purchased 388 French-built Leclerc heavy battle tanks, which are, next to the Abrams, arguably the best heavy tank on the battlefield (I respect French military equipment...so shoot me). The Navy has 11 corvettes of three separate makes, all very fast and capable of offensive operations. The Navy lacks even one Frigate, which is probably a good thing...I can't imagine its use, in a coastline like the UAE's. Recently, the UAE has been focusing on fast attack craft and support vessels for naval operations. Overall, the navy meets all the requirements without really excelling in any particular area. The UAE does not expect to get invaded anytime soon, but the need to keep its heavy tanks in good performance order is essential. If Saudi Arabia suffers a border incursion of any kind (IS), the UAE will be determined to aid the Saudis as much as possible. Aside from the armor, the superior UAE Air Force will be welcome.
Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar shouldn't mind being thrown together into one paragraph. I'm sure its not the first time. Of the three smaller Gulf nations, Kuwait has the more prolific military. Following the first Gulf War, the Royal family was determined to put up a bit more of a resistance, should Saddam come knocking again. Even though the official statistics list the Kuwaiti army as having 11,000 soldiers, somehow they have managed to purchase over 200 U.S. 1-A2 Abrams tanks. to supplement the Abrams, Kuwait purchased 400 Humvees, roughly 100 self-propelled howitzers, over 200 anti-tank guided weapons, and, the cherry on the cake, 27 Russian-made BM-30 Smerch multiple launch rocket systems. Can they even fit all this shit into Kuwait? More reasonably, the Kuwaitis purchased 35 F-18 Hornets, along with multiple support aircraft, 18 Apache Attack Helicopters, and about 100 separate air defense system units (including SAM and the UK Starburst). Neither Qatar nor Bahrain pretend to have use for a major Armed Forces. Qatar does have 62 German-made Leopard tanks, which given the source are bound to be bad ass (and their reviews agree). Qatar relies on less than 20 French-made Mirages and a handful of older helicopters to round-out its Air Force. The standing army is somewhere near 13,000. Bahrain also has a small army, with no tanks (they used to have less than 100 M60s; current location, unknown). The Air Force is respectable, with 17 active and modern F-16s, and 4 squadrons (36 in total) of older attack helicopters. Both Qatar and Bahrain have sizeable and well-trained security services. If the U.S. or Saudi Arabia requested military assistance from Qatar and Bahrain, I see some useful Mirages and F-16s, possibly some attack helicopters, and 62 German Leopard heavy battle tanks. Both navies are negligible, although Bahrain is in possession of an older former U.S. Frigate and a handful of guided missile patrol craft.
Yemen is in a state of flux....the mechanism that controls the functions of state has yet to be determined for more than a few days at a time. The Yemeni military has collapsed and will have to be rebuilt. The Houthis are in hardly better shape. The last video I recall of Houthis celebrating in the streets included a man on a camel, carrying a musket that George Washington wouldn't have been seen with. I'm at a loss as to how these Houthi folks won out, although I suspect that they just waited longer. The real concern is for the well-being of the U.S. military (and clandestine/civilian) personnel still in country. Al-Qaeda is primed to take over, given that the U.S. military is exclusively limited to the use of Drones for offensive actions, and the Houthis don't seem to have much in the way of equipment. I thought the Iranians were trying to make some statement here? I say we take our young men and women out, and let Al-Qaeda or the Houthis have it. The Saudis will be forced to deal with the situation, and something tells me that they will make short-work of both the Houthis and Al-Qaeda. the Omani Air Force is a bit of a surprise, with 12 F/16C/D and 12 Eurofighter Typhoons on the way. 11 BAe 203 Hawks for ground attack, and lots of useful support elements. The Omani Army is built to suit its environment. The Royal Army still keeps 38 older Challenger British-made heavy tanks, but is focused more on a rapid-reply offensive capability. Somehow the Omanis came into possession of one (1) B1 Italian Centauro Monster with 120 mm weapon. More useful are the 175 Swiss-built Mowag Piranha armored fighting vehicles. The Royal Omani Navy is impressive, with five new Corvettes (2 built in 1994), 3 more ordered from BAe, 4 fast attack craft, 3 additional Al-Bushra French-made patrol craft, and an amphibious transport vessel. The Royal Omani Armed Forces have a very close relationship with both the United States and the United Kingdom, so security in Muscat is not an over-riding concern.
B. World's Largest Armies, According to Global Security
C. Business Insider's 35 Most Powerful Armies
I am fascinated by the Saudi Arabian Armed Forces. This is a lean, mean, fighting machine, and most people outside of the business of war, don't seem to have a clue. Since getting involved in two ill-advised wars against Israel, the Saudis have kept a very low military profile. The Saudi military was content to follow the U.S. lead in the first Gulf War, although Saudi units were in the thick of the fighting and acquitted themselves well (especially armor). The Royal Family, closely associated with every aspect of the military take full advantage of the situation to create a sense of patriotism that the Kingdom had never previously experienced. Saudi soldiers were welcomed home with parades and children waving that confusing green flag with the sword and all the spaghetti. The Saudi's have 315 front line M-1A2 Abrams heavy battle tanks ready at the drop of a pin, and 200 more in storage. If necessary (however unlikely), they have 290 French-made AMX-30s ready to go, which have been re-conditioned for desert warfare and is a tight little tank in its own right. The Saudi forces are more than adequate when it comes to artillery, both mobile and stationary, and if you recall, during the first Gulf War, Saddam Hussein started tossing some Scud missiles in the direction of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Since then, the Saudis have been determined to find a system similar to the Israeli "Dome", which blocks any incoming missiles. Until that technology becomes available to the Kingdom, they are more than sufficient with anti-missile and missile intercept systems. The Saudi ground forces are hardy and pride themselves on their regimen and training. The Air Force continues to fly U.S.-made F-15S bombers and F-15C fighters, but the mainstay of the Saudi fighter squadrons is the Typhoon Eurofighter. The purchase of the Eurofighter came as a bit of a surprise and involved some controversy with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who somehow was involved with negotiations. The U.S. had been hoping that the Saudi Air Force would upgrade to F-16s, F-18s, or possibly even F-35s. The Saudis can mobilize 250,000 troops in a matter of days. I read a news report recently which hypothesized that the Houthi issue in Yemen exposed a weakness in the Saudi military. In a way, the comment is accurate. If the Saudis wanted to military intervene in Yemen, I have no idea how they would pull that off. All of their armor is pointed in another direction, and PCS'd on the other side of the country. Fortunately, a handful of elderly Eastern European women with gas could wipe out the Houthis, so I don't think the Saudis really have much to worry about. I do think its a bit of a waste, the Saudi military being all shined up, trained, and ready to go, with the world's most modern equipment, but not having a war to fight. By the way, its important to remember that the stature of the military in the Kingdom has very little to do with any perceived threat from the outside. The impressiveness of the military is a direct reflection of the Royal family.
The military of the United Arab Emirates is similar in many ways to that of Saudi Arabia. Just to show off, lets name all seven of the Emirates: Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Fujairah, Umm al-Quwain, Sharjah, Ajman, and Ras al-Khaimah. The UAE is an amazing country and I highly recommend it to everyone except couples who like to kiss in public, and Gay folks. (Gay and like to kiss in public but want to stay in the Gulf? Try Oman.) The beaches are magnificent, the hotels and modern developments are awe-inspiring, the de-salinization plants are state-of-the-art, and the Russian prostitutes are everywhere....at least at night, in the lobbies of hotels. If you think you have seen wealth in Beverly Hills or the Hamptons, you haven't seen anything until you've visited Dubai. The Emiratis spend a great deal of money on the military and on the intelligence services. The UAE Air Force is exceptional. The government has approached this branch of the Armed Forces with a sense of import. Currently, the UAE flies roughly 60 recently refitted F-16S and 50 French Mirage 2000-9, which have also been refitted with the latest hardware. The Air Force has a superior support network and a budding Helicopter capability. The training is also exceptional, and the pilots have been receiving some valuable experience over the skies of Iraq and Syria, as part of the U.S. coalition of allies. In the late 1990s, the Emiratis chose a heavy battle tank other than the U.S.-offered Abrams. The UAE purchased 388 French-built Leclerc heavy battle tanks, which are, next to the Abrams, arguably the best heavy tank on the battlefield (I respect French military equipment...so shoot me). The Navy has 11 corvettes of three separate makes, all very fast and capable of offensive operations. The Navy lacks even one Frigate, which is probably a good thing...I can't imagine its use, in a coastline like the UAE's. Recently, the UAE has been focusing on fast attack craft and support vessels for naval operations. Overall, the navy meets all the requirements without really excelling in any particular area. The UAE does not expect to get invaded anytime soon, but the need to keep its heavy tanks in good performance order is essential. If Saudi Arabia suffers a border incursion of any kind (IS), the UAE will be determined to aid the Saudis as much as possible. Aside from the armor, the superior UAE Air Force will be welcome.
Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar shouldn't mind being thrown together into one paragraph. I'm sure its not the first time. Of the three smaller Gulf nations, Kuwait has the more prolific military. Following the first Gulf War, the Royal family was determined to put up a bit more of a resistance, should Saddam come knocking again. Even though the official statistics list the Kuwaiti army as having 11,000 soldiers, somehow they have managed to purchase over 200 U.S. 1-A2 Abrams tanks. to supplement the Abrams, Kuwait purchased 400 Humvees, roughly 100 self-propelled howitzers, over 200 anti-tank guided weapons, and, the cherry on the cake, 27 Russian-made BM-30 Smerch multiple launch rocket systems. Can they even fit all this shit into Kuwait? More reasonably, the Kuwaitis purchased 35 F-18 Hornets, along with multiple support aircraft, 18 Apache Attack Helicopters, and about 100 separate air defense system units (including SAM and the UK Starburst). Neither Qatar nor Bahrain pretend to have use for a major Armed Forces. Qatar does have 62 German-made Leopard tanks, which given the source are bound to be bad ass (and their reviews agree). Qatar relies on less than 20 French-made Mirages and a handful of older helicopters to round-out its Air Force. The standing army is somewhere near 13,000. Bahrain also has a small army, with no tanks (they used to have less than 100 M60s; current location, unknown). The Air Force is respectable, with 17 active and modern F-16s, and 4 squadrons (36 in total) of older attack helicopters. Both Qatar and Bahrain have sizeable and well-trained security services. If the U.S. or Saudi Arabia requested military assistance from Qatar and Bahrain, I see some useful Mirages and F-16s, possibly some attack helicopters, and 62 German Leopard heavy battle tanks. Both navies are negligible, although Bahrain is in possession of an older former U.S. Frigate and a handful of guided missile patrol craft.
Yemen is in a state of flux....the mechanism that controls the functions of state has yet to be determined for more than a few days at a time. The Yemeni military has collapsed and will have to be rebuilt. The Houthis are in hardly better shape. The last video I recall of Houthis celebrating in the streets included a man on a camel, carrying a musket that George Washington wouldn't have been seen with. I'm at a loss as to how these Houthi folks won out, although I suspect that they just waited longer. The real concern is for the well-being of the U.S. military (and clandestine/civilian) personnel still in country. Al-Qaeda is primed to take over, given that the U.S. military is exclusively limited to the use of Drones for offensive actions, and the Houthis don't seem to have much in the way of equipment. I thought the Iranians were trying to make some statement here? I say we take our young men and women out, and let Al-Qaeda or the Houthis have it. The Saudis will be forced to deal with the situation, and something tells me that they will make short-work of both the Houthis and Al-Qaeda. the Omani Air Force is a bit of a surprise, with 12 F/16C/D and 12 Eurofighter Typhoons on the way. 11 BAe 203 Hawks for ground attack, and lots of useful support elements. The Omani Army is built to suit its environment. The Royal Army still keeps 38 older Challenger British-made heavy tanks, but is focused more on a rapid-reply offensive capability. Somehow the Omanis came into possession of one (1) B1 Italian Centauro Monster with 120 mm weapon. More useful are the 175 Swiss-built Mowag Piranha armored fighting vehicles. The Royal Omani Navy is impressive, with five new Corvettes (2 built in 1994), 3 more ordered from BAe, 4 fast attack craft, 3 additional Al-Bushra French-made patrol craft, and an amphibious transport vessel. The Royal Omani Armed Forces have a very close relationship with both the United States and the United Kingdom, so security in Muscat is not an over-riding concern.
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
The War Against ISIL Is Being Lost While Obama Vacations...Again
Links: A. Iranian Militia-Leader Killed In Iraq
B. ISIL Retakes Baiji In Iraq
C. Russia Steps Up Involvement In Syria
I read in today's Washington Post that President Barrack Obama's favorability rating had improved up to 47 percent. I guess we should infer that the American people approve of the President acting unilaterally for the sole purpose of creating voters to support his political ideology. And, if the Amnesty issue wasn't irksome enough, Obama has decided (again, UNILATERALLY), to start the process of normalizing relations with Cuba. Obama announced this effort in his usual fashion. By declaring that the United States would be making all of the compromises and that in order to gain our friendship, Cuba would have to do....nothing. No, they were not required to release political prisoners, or legalize opposition parties, or end detention without trail. They weren't even asked to end their campaign of terror against U.S. citizens living in Florida who happen to oppose the Castro dictatorship. Obama makes two huge unilateral decisions and goes on vacation, and his approval jumps to 47 percent. Obviously he has this country figured out and I'm living in the past.
Lets cool off a bit by discussing the Islamic State (ISIL) and its offensives in both Syria and Iraq. Link C details very recent Russian efforts to get diplomatic traction in Syria. Not surprisingly, the EU bent over and greased up for Putin, I guess to reward him for not snatching another piece of Ukraine this week (I shouldn't complain....and least it was the EU and not Uncle Sam taking it south-ways this week). Putin's recent interest in Syria comes on the heels of recent unexpected military disasters for the regular Syrian Army in battles with ISIL. Remember, you heard it hear first (at least two months ago); Putin will not forsake Bashir al-Assad, at least not until he can replace him with another sycophant who will provide the Russian navy with a full-size (read: ballistic submarines) naval facility on Syria's Mediterranean Coast. What were John Kerry and the U.S. State Department doing while Putin was snuggling up to the EU? Probably smoking celebratory cigars with the Castro brothers. Since Obama enjoys adulation so much, I predict a trip to Havana is in the planning stages (again, remember you heard it here!). I wonder if he will think twice about the hundreds, maybe thousands of political prisoners that are rotting in Cuban jails without any kind of due process, some as young as thirteen years old. While Putin was re-establishing his Bona Fides vis-a-vis the Syrian conflict, the United States was continuing its illustrious Air Campaign against ISIL. In all honestly, the ineffectiveness of this military initiative has been a shock. Knowing the capabilities of the U.S. Air Force, I fully expected that ISIL would be suffering by now from supply problems. Our Air Force in Iraq and Afghanistan, using drones and ground troops to locate and verify targets, made it impossible for the enemy to move, let alone refuel, rearm and resupply. As I woke up this Sunday morning and read the news before Mass, I was reminded that ISIL has devastated regular Syrian Army positions in Eastern and Western Syria, and also retaken the town of Baiji, which was surrendered by the Iraqi Army without so much as fart in the direction of the enemy. But the Oil Refinery was heavily defended, which illustrates the priority of the Iraqi government. Let the people in Baiji get abused and in some cases, murdered by ISIL, as long as the money-maker keeps pumping.
Lately I've been very impressed with the willingness of the Iranians to take on ISIL in Iraq. The truth is, they recognize the threat that this group represents. Link A details the assassination of an important Iranian militia leader, who was active in Iraq's Diyala Province. Well, Diyala is in Eastern Iraq, just outside of Baghdad, and could not be more strategic. I was a bit perplexed by the number of individual Iranian-backed Shiite militias that were active in Iraq. These include, but are not limited to, the Mukhtar Army, Hezbollah Brigades (Hezbollah in Iraq, not Lebanon), Badr Brigades, Asaib al Haq, and something called the Peace Brigade. C'mon, Ayatollah whoever you are, don't you realize how much more effective to would be if you just merged these groups together? Each militia, fighting separately, with its own politically-focused leader, will have a miniscule impact on the conflict as opposed to what could be accomplished with one, well-equipped and properly led militia. At least the Iranians are recognizing the seriousness of the situation. The Iraqi Army cannot gain any traction. After publicizing the recapture of one or two towns, they pray that the local press won't also announced that four towns were occupied by ISIL during the same time period. Something tells me that the Iranians will be forced to launch a full-scale military intervention in Iraq. Its obviously something they would like to avoid, or at least delay until Obama finds a way to diplomatically allow them to enrich as much uranium as they want. Since Obama has been in office, the Iranians have moved closer and closer to complete independence for their nuclear program.
ISIL is on the offensive in Syria, and giving the Iraqi Army and the Iranian militias fits in Iraq. What about our bombing campaign? Where are the figures? I want to know how much ordinance has been expended and what the enemy has lost. You know the military has those figures at their fingertips. Normally I wouldn't care, but I'm trying to understand how a ragtag group of terrorists, totally without air support (except for a few drones, we're told), is moving around Iraq and Syria with impunity? How was ISIL able to reoccupy a town as large and strategic as Baiji, under the nose of the air coalition led by the United States Air Force, and including elements from France, Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE? Anyone? I don't see any slowdown in ISIL, so how about we save the U.S. taxpayer billions of dollars and just pull out? John Kerry should understand the policy. Its what he advocated for when he returned from Vietnam, remember?
On a separate note, I want to acknowledge all the media reports of Fidel Castro announcing Cuba's refusal to move one inch away from its Communist principles. I'm shocked that anyone would be surprised. Cuba isn't going to change, folks. What will happen, is a bunch of rich businessmen who donated money to Obama (and possibly Rand Paul as well), will build new, flashy resorts around the island, and make a ton of money. The Cuban elite will get their cut, the black market that runs the Cuban economy will get its due, and Obama's base will hail their icon as the man who saved the Cuban people (from the mean, ol' USA). Folks, the reality is, no one gives a shit about Cuba or the Cuban people. If Obama thought about Cuba even once while trotting from the sixth hole to the seventh, I will eat my hat. The goal isn't to change Cuba. ITS TO CHANGE THE UNITED STATES. More damage has been done to our Constitution in the last six years than has been done in the previous two hundred. This Imperial Administration is allowed to ignore an obvious electoral mandate, and just sideswipe Congress to enact monumental legislation. And the nut-less wonders Boehner and McConnell got over on us again, as nothing as yet to be even suggested in opposition to Obama's actions. Well, the GOP will have a nice surprise come 2016. I'm not sure about the Presidential Election, but conservative and moderate independent voters will either split the primary or not vote. The GOP rhinos have called the bluff of their own voters one too many times.
B. ISIL Retakes Baiji In Iraq
C. Russia Steps Up Involvement In Syria
I read in today's Washington Post that President Barrack Obama's favorability rating had improved up to 47 percent. I guess we should infer that the American people approve of the President acting unilaterally for the sole purpose of creating voters to support his political ideology. And, if the Amnesty issue wasn't irksome enough, Obama has decided (again, UNILATERALLY), to start the process of normalizing relations with Cuba. Obama announced this effort in his usual fashion. By declaring that the United States would be making all of the compromises and that in order to gain our friendship, Cuba would have to do....nothing. No, they were not required to release political prisoners, or legalize opposition parties, or end detention without trail. They weren't even asked to end their campaign of terror against U.S. citizens living in Florida who happen to oppose the Castro dictatorship. Obama makes two huge unilateral decisions and goes on vacation, and his approval jumps to 47 percent. Obviously he has this country figured out and I'm living in the past.
Lets cool off a bit by discussing the Islamic State (ISIL) and its offensives in both Syria and Iraq. Link C details very recent Russian efforts to get diplomatic traction in Syria. Not surprisingly, the EU bent over and greased up for Putin, I guess to reward him for not snatching another piece of Ukraine this week (I shouldn't complain....and least it was the EU and not Uncle Sam taking it south-ways this week). Putin's recent interest in Syria comes on the heels of recent unexpected military disasters for the regular Syrian Army in battles with ISIL. Remember, you heard it hear first (at least two months ago); Putin will not forsake Bashir al-Assad, at least not until he can replace him with another sycophant who will provide the Russian navy with a full-size (read: ballistic submarines) naval facility on Syria's Mediterranean Coast. What were John Kerry and the U.S. State Department doing while Putin was snuggling up to the EU? Probably smoking celebratory cigars with the Castro brothers. Since Obama enjoys adulation so much, I predict a trip to Havana is in the planning stages (again, remember you heard it here!). I wonder if he will think twice about the hundreds, maybe thousands of political prisoners that are rotting in Cuban jails without any kind of due process, some as young as thirteen years old. While Putin was re-establishing his Bona Fides vis-a-vis the Syrian conflict, the United States was continuing its illustrious Air Campaign against ISIL. In all honestly, the ineffectiveness of this military initiative has been a shock. Knowing the capabilities of the U.S. Air Force, I fully expected that ISIL would be suffering by now from supply problems. Our Air Force in Iraq and Afghanistan, using drones and ground troops to locate and verify targets, made it impossible for the enemy to move, let alone refuel, rearm and resupply. As I woke up this Sunday morning and read the news before Mass, I was reminded that ISIL has devastated regular Syrian Army positions in Eastern and Western Syria, and also retaken the town of Baiji, which was surrendered by the Iraqi Army without so much as fart in the direction of the enemy. But the Oil Refinery was heavily defended, which illustrates the priority of the Iraqi government. Let the people in Baiji get abused and in some cases, murdered by ISIL, as long as the money-maker keeps pumping.
Lately I've been very impressed with the willingness of the Iranians to take on ISIL in Iraq. The truth is, they recognize the threat that this group represents. Link A details the assassination of an important Iranian militia leader, who was active in Iraq's Diyala Province. Well, Diyala is in Eastern Iraq, just outside of Baghdad, and could not be more strategic. I was a bit perplexed by the number of individual Iranian-backed Shiite militias that were active in Iraq. These include, but are not limited to, the Mukhtar Army, Hezbollah Brigades (Hezbollah in Iraq, not Lebanon), Badr Brigades, Asaib al Haq, and something called the Peace Brigade. C'mon, Ayatollah whoever you are, don't you realize how much more effective to would be if you just merged these groups together? Each militia, fighting separately, with its own politically-focused leader, will have a miniscule impact on the conflict as opposed to what could be accomplished with one, well-equipped and properly led militia. At least the Iranians are recognizing the seriousness of the situation. The Iraqi Army cannot gain any traction. After publicizing the recapture of one or two towns, they pray that the local press won't also announced that four towns were occupied by ISIL during the same time period. Something tells me that the Iranians will be forced to launch a full-scale military intervention in Iraq. Its obviously something they would like to avoid, or at least delay until Obama finds a way to diplomatically allow them to enrich as much uranium as they want. Since Obama has been in office, the Iranians have moved closer and closer to complete independence for their nuclear program.
ISIL is on the offensive in Syria, and giving the Iraqi Army and the Iranian militias fits in Iraq. What about our bombing campaign? Where are the figures? I want to know how much ordinance has been expended and what the enemy has lost. You know the military has those figures at their fingertips. Normally I wouldn't care, but I'm trying to understand how a ragtag group of terrorists, totally without air support (except for a few drones, we're told), is moving around Iraq and Syria with impunity? How was ISIL able to reoccupy a town as large and strategic as Baiji, under the nose of the air coalition led by the United States Air Force, and including elements from France, Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE? Anyone? I don't see any slowdown in ISIL, so how about we save the U.S. taxpayer billions of dollars and just pull out? John Kerry should understand the policy. Its what he advocated for when he returned from Vietnam, remember?
On a separate note, I want to acknowledge all the media reports of Fidel Castro announcing Cuba's refusal to move one inch away from its Communist principles. I'm shocked that anyone would be surprised. Cuba isn't going to change, folks. What will happen, is a bunch of rich businessmen who donated money to Obama (and possibly Rand Paul as well), will build new, flashy resorts around the island, and make a ton of money. The Cuban elite will get their cut, the black market that runs the Cuban economy will get its due, and Obama's base will hail their icon as the man who saved the Cuban people (from the mean, ol' USA). Folks, the reality is, no one gives a shit about Cuba or the Cuban people. If Obama thought about Cuba even once while trotting from the sixth hole to the seventh, I will eat my hat. The goal isn't to change Cuba. ITS TO CHANGE THE UNITED STATES. More damage has been done to our Constitution in the last six years than has been done in the previous two hundred. This Imperial Administration is allowed to ignore an obvious electoral mandate, and just sideswipe Congress to enact monumental legislation. And the nut-less wonders Boehner and McConnell got over on us again, as nothing as yet to be even suggested in opposition to Obama's actions. Well, the GOP will have a nice surprise come 2016. I'm not sure about the Presidential Election, but conservative and moderate independent voters will either split the primary or not vote. The GOP rhinos have called the bluff of their own voters one too many times.
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
Extremists On The Offensive In Syria
Links: A. Al-Nusra Front, Ahrar al Sham Advance In Syria
B. Islamic State Advances On Deir al Zour
Lately I've had to come to grips with the fact that I was wrong regarding certain events in Syria. Last month I repeatedly raised expectations that forces loyal to de facto Syrian President Bashir al-Assad would have had the opportunity to refit and reorganize. I opined that Russian military aid would have allowed the Syrian Armed Forces to reconstitute its armor brigades and possibly rebuild the Syrian Air Force. The Allied air campaign should have occupied the Islamic State (ISIL) and the various other armed groups enough to allow the regular Syrian Army an opportunity to regain the strategic initiative, I hypothesized. It appears that I was mistaken. Even though in late November the international media printed a number of stories indicating a slow down in ISIL military advances, the reality is that the extremist groups were on the move just about everywhere.
For some reason, the press and media continue to separate the groups who make up the Islamic extremist element in Syria. Wasn't there a recognition in October that Al-Nusra, ISIL, Ahrar al Sham (and whoever else wants to throw their hat into the ring) are loyal to Al-Qaeda? And yet we continue to see Al-Nusra being given the mantle of "Al-Qaeda's representative in Syria", as if we are referring to a Lodge meeting in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Unless I see some usefulness in doing so, I will not refer to separate Islamic extremist factions in Syria. I have a good idea why the U.S. media (eager to do the bidding of this administration) continues to perpetrate the falsehood that their is some significant difference between these groups. Qatar (and possibly the UAE as well), who has a couple jets involved in the "anti-ISIS" air campaign, has been suspected of supporting some of these other groups in the past. Qatar wants to be seen as only bombing ISIL targets, because ISIL's message of an enlarged Caliphate is dangerous to the existing Gulf royal families. Qatar wants to continue its "clandestine" support for these other groups, though, so they will only participate in ther bombing of ISIL targets. If someone has evidence that Qatar and the UAE contingents in the air campaign have indeed participated in action against non-ISIL targets, please let me know. Actually, I'm not even sure of the United States is bombing non-ISIL targets (although you would think that "Al-Qaeda's representative in Syria" would be in line for some sort of attention).
What a mess. We can be certain of one thing: the regular Syrian forces have been taking a beating in the northwestern province of Idlib and eastern province of Deir al Zour. Interestingly enough, the extremists have been making effective use of American-made TOW anti-tank missiles in action against Syrian armor. Will I be the first to consider just how the TOW anti-tank missiles ended up the hands of the extremists? Were they originally the property of the Free Syrian Army that is being supported and armed by the United States? Assad can only be ringing his hands in despair as the U.S.-led air campaign seems to be having no impact on the Islamic extremists offensives against the few remaining government positions outside of Damascus. I'm one of those folks who likes to look at a big map and envision the various military elements and positions accordingly. I have spent a decent amount of time focusing on the regular Syrian Army, and I think I'm beginning to get a grasp on the three main groups that constitute the Islamic extremist forces. But I'm totally in the dark regarding the army that the United States government was planning on training in place of U.S. ground forces. Last summer we were told that the United States military would be training and equipping the "Free Syrian Army" (sometimes called the "New Syrian Army"). If my memory serves me correctly, this military force was led by a group of former regime officers who were both secular and opposed to Assad. Money was allotted for the training and equipping of this army, and I recall the Pentagon supposing that it would take somewhere around four months to stand-up the Free Syrian Army. In October, my understanding of the situation was shaken like an Etch-a-Sketch. The Pentagon released a statement declaring that the Free Syrian Army would be a force utilized for defensive operations only. Then a few days later, I recall news reports indicating that elements of the free Syrian Army had been involved in a battle with ISIS, and came away the worse for it. Was this a "defensive only" engagement?
If I could get the answers to a few simple questions, my understanding of the conflict would be increased measurably. What is the state of the Free Syrian Army? Does it exist, is it active, and will the Pentagon confirm its previous statement that the Free Syrian Army has definite rules of engagement that limit is capabilities to defensive action only? Is it true that the Qatari government requested rules of engagement for its contribution to the air campaign, which would exempt Qatari jets from bombing any targets other than ISIL? If so, does the UAE, Kuwait or Bahrain have the same prohibition sewn into their agreement to be part of the Allied air coalition? I can't help but feel a bit lost on the Syrian front. The last time I spent much time on this part of the map, the Kurds were besieged by ISIL in Kobane; has this situation in Kobane changed? Its true I have been keeping a closer eye on developments in Iraq, as the growing Iranian involvement has me reconsidering my prediction that Baghdad would eventually fall to ISIL. The Iranians have the capacity to defeat ISIL hands-down. At the same time, the Iranian government might decide to climb back into its hole and pull back its resources. When it comes to efforts to obtain weapons-grade Uranium, the Iranians are easy to predict. But when it comes to the deployment of its military, Iran can vacillate with the best of them.
B. Islamic State Advances On Deir al Zour
Lately I've had to come to grips with the fact that I was wrong regarding certain events in Syria. Last month I repeatedly raised expectations that forces loyal to de facto Syrian President Bashir al-Assad would have had the opportunity to refit and reorganize. I opined that Russian military aid would have allowed the Syrian Armed Forces to reconstitute its armor brigades and possibly rebuild the Syrian Air Force. The Allied air campaign should have occupied the Islamic State (ISIL) and the various other armed groups enough to allow the regular Syrian Army an opportunity to regain the strategic initiative, I hypothesized. It appears that I was mistaken. Even though in late November the international media printed a number of stories indicating a slow down in ISIL military advances, the reality is that the extremist groups were on the move just about everywhere.
For some reason, the press and media continue to separate the groups who make up the Islamic extremist element in Syria. Wasn't there a recognition in October that Al-Nusra, ISIL, Ahrar al Sham (and whoever else wants to throw their hat into the ring) are loyal to Al-Qaeda? And yet we continue to see Al-Nusra being given the mantle of "Al-Qaeda's representative in Syria", as if we are referring to a Lodge meeting in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Unless I see some usefulness in doing so, I will not refer to separate Islamic extremist factions in Syria. I have a good idea why the U.S. media (eager to do the bidding of this administration) continues to perpetrate the falsehood that their is some significant difference between these groups. Qatar (and possibly the UAE as well), who has a couple jets involved in the "anti-ISIS" air campaign, has been suspected of supporting some of these other groups in the past. Qatar wants to be seen as only bombing ISIL targets, because ISIL's message of an enlarged Caliphate is dangerous to the existing Gulf royal families. Qatar wants to continue its "clandestine" support for these other groups, though, so they will only participate in ther bombing of ISIL targets. If someone has evidence that Qatar and the UAE contingents in the air campaign have indeed participated in action against non-ISIL targets, please let me know. Actually, I'm not even sure of the United States is bombing non-ISIL targets (although you would think that "Al-Qaeda's representative in Syria" would be in line for some sort of attention).
What a mess. We can be certain of one thing: the regular Syrian forces have been taking a beating in the northwestern province of Idlib and eastern province of Deir al Zour. Interestingly enough, the extremists have been making effective use of American-made TOW anti-tank missiles in action against Syrian armor. Will I be the first to consider just how the TOW anti-tank missiles ended up the hands of the extremists? Were they originally the property of the Free Syrian Army that is being supported and armed by the United States? Assad can only be ringing his hands in despair as the U.S.-led air campaign seems to be having no impact on the Islamic extremists offensives against the few remaining government positions outside of Damascus. I'm one of those folks who likes to look at a big map and envision the various military elements and positions accordingly. I have spent a decent amount of time focusing on the regular Syrian Army, and I think I'm beginning to get a grasp on the three main groups that constitute the Islamic extremist forces. But I'm totally in the dark regarding the army that the United States government was planning on training in place of U.S. ground forces. Last summer we were told that the United States military would be training and equipping the "Free Syrian Army" (sometimes called the "New Syrian Army"). If my memory serves me correctly, this military force was led by a group of former regime officers who were both secular and opposed to Assad. Money was allotted for the training and equipping of this army, and I recall the Pentagon supposing that it would take somewhere around four months to stand-up the Free Syrian Army. In October, my understanding of the situation was shaken like an Etch-a-Sketch. The Pentagon released a statement declaring that the Free Syrian Army would be a force utilized for defensive operations only. Then a few days later, I recall news reports indicating that elements of the free Syrian Army had been involved in a battle with ISIS, and came away the worse for it. Was this a "defensive only" engagement?
If I could get the answers to a few simple questions, my understanding of the conflict would be increased measurably. What is the state of the Free Syrian Army? Does it exist, is it active, and will the Pentagon confirm its previous statement that the Free Syrian Army has definite rules of engagement that limit is capabilities to defensive action only? Is it true that the Qatari government requested rules of engagement for its contribution to the air campaign, which would exempt Qatari jets from bombing any targets other than ISIL? If so, does the UAE, Kuwait or Bahrain have the same prohibition sewn into their agreement to be part of the Allied air coalition? I can't help but feel a bit lost on the Syrian front. The last time I spent much time on this part of the map, the Kurds were besieged by ISIL in Kobane; has this situation in Kobane changed? Its true I have been keeping a closer eye on developments in Iraq, as the growing Iranian involvement has me reconsidering my prediction that Baghdad would eventually fall to ISIL. The Iranians have the capacity to defeat ISIL hands-down. At the same time, the Iranian government might decide to climb back into its hole and pull back its resources. When it comes to efforts to obtain weapons-grade Uranium, the Iranians are easy to predict. But when it comes to the deployment of its military, Iran can vacillate with the best of them.
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Who Are The Gulf States, Exactly?
Links: A. United Arab Emirates Wikipedia
B. Oman Wikipedia
C. Kuwait Wikipedia
D. Qatar Wikipedia
E. Bahrain Wikipedia
When I was a young boy, I was fascinated with maps. I spent hours trying to determine the methodology for the color-coding of different countries, and also did my best to learn the correct pronunciations of the countless rivers, mountains, towns, and cities. When I grew a little older, I became interested in history, so the Atlas section of my family's Encyclopedias got put down, and the Encyclopedias themselves got put to use. Not surprisingly, I gravitated towards some places more than others (it might be déjà vu, reincarnation, or it might be coincidence, but most people who look at maps and globes will feel an odd familiarity with certain place names). I was drawn to a political entity known as "The Trucial States". I counted seven oddly-shaped little places, all hugging the south shore of the Persian Gulf. In my mind's eye, I pictured camels, men in white, flowing robes with rope-ring head pieces to keep their head-covering on, tents, and sand......lots and lots of sand. This description wasn't far from the truth back in the 1930s and 1940s. As far a colonial influences go, the Persian Gulf was a British lake. Following the death of the Ottoman Empire in 1922, the British happily moved into the void.
In most of Great Britain's colonies, calls for independence put pressure on the British government to relinquish control to the indigenous peoples. In some countries, such as Kenya, Nigeria and Ghana, the process was observed internationally, and there was great optimism that the transition from one form of government to another, would go smoothly. Interestingly enough, the Trucial States were in no hurry to separate from great Britain. The importance of oil in the region was on everyone's mind, and the various Shaykhs of the Trucial States enjoyed having the protection of the British navy and Air Force. It was actually the British who insisted on the Declaration of Independence in 1971. The seven Trucial States, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Fujairah, Ajman, Sharjah, Um al-Quwain, and Ras al-Khaimah, each had its own Shaykh. Representatives from the seven Shaykhdoms met and decided to form a federation, which called itself the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Abu Dhabi and Dubai are larger in size and population than the other five Emirates, and there was some concern that the smaller Shaykhdoms might feel slighted because of the greater influence that Dubai and Abu Dhabi naturally possessed. But it never really has been a problem. The Emirates are incredibly wealthy, and the largesse has been distributed in a smart and effectual manner. The UAE has a surprisingly large and well-equipped Armed Forces (thank you, United States), and shares one common currency. Certain political positions are granted on a rotating basis, while others are voted upon. The leaders of the UAE have traditionally been from Abu Dhabi and Dubai, but they have done such a stellar
job negotiating the Emirates away from conflict and towards greater wealth, that no one dares complain. The UAE has become a popular tourist destination, especially for the British (just don't get caught kissing in public, especially if you are gay). The Emirates prides itself on having some of the tallest buildings in the world, including the astounding Burj Khalifa Tower in Dubai. The UAE can also be proud of its research and discoveries in desalinization. A great deal of Emirati wealth has found its way to the California real estate market, especially high-end shopping center projects. The current Prime Minister of the UAE, Mohammed bin Rashid al-Mahktoum, is a true lover of horse racing, and owns stables and breeding centers in Australia and the United States.
I love Oman. Of all the gulf States, and I include Saudi Arabia and Yemen in this instance, Oman, has managed to follow its own, independent course. Oman, which has a relatively small population, has extremely good relations with the west. Sultan Qaboos, who deposed his father in 1970 during what has been Oman's only internal conflict of the modern era, has not shown a fear of modern development, and welcomes tourists from Europe and the United States. The women of Oman do not suffer under the same prohibitions as exist in Saudi Arabia. The Omani Army is well-trained and equipped (mostly by the Brits), but for practical purposes is too small to be useful for anything other than self-defense and internal conflict. I have a personal affinity for Oman because it is an absolutely lovely place. Muscat, the capital city, is filled with buildings that could have
been plucked right out of the seventeenth century. The original Portuguese fort built in 1580 to guard the entrance to Muscat (Fort Al-Jalali) continues its timeless duty of protecting the Omanis from Pirates and other ne'er do wells. The Omani people are a pleasure to look at, and take great care in their appearance without obvious signs of vanity. Qaboos has been a loyal friend to the United States and western Europe since he first sat on the throne. I'm sure at one time or another, extremists have attempted to set-up shop in Oman. But I guessing that they didn't make much progress, as the people seem very loyal to their sovereign and content with their lives.
Kuwait reminds me of the opposite of Oman in many ways. Although the Al-Sabah family keeps a tight grip on power, the political environment in Kuwait has become much noisier as of late. The Sabahs have to contend with a very vocal women's right lobby and a population that at times appears sympathetic to Islamic extremist groups. Was it that long ago that Saddam Hussein's Army poured into Kuwait, emptied the stores and dumped babies out of incubators? A Kuwaiti friend of mine explained why a segment of the population of Kuwait has become sympathetic to the jihadis. From 1990 to the present, the United States military has had a large presence in Kuwait. Many Kuwaitis are not happy with the inevitable influence that this group of young Americans has had on their country. This includes the relaxation of attitudes regarding liquor consumption, the fraternization between Kuwaiti women and U.S. servicemen, and the unavoidable evolution of the Kuwaiti economy to accommodate all those U.S. dollars. Another unintended result of the U.S. presence is the perceived growth of the Christian community and the movement away from the teachings of Islam. A not insignificant percentage of native-born Kuwaitis are convinced that Kuwait needs to embrace a traditional brand of Islam that will remove the Game Boys, the mini-skirts and the six packs of Budweiser. It is rumored that a well-placed member of the Sabahs is very sympathetic towards conservative Islam and is working hard to influence his family. Help may be on the way. Its my understanding that the draw-down of U.S. military forces overseas includes most of our Army facilities in Kuwait.
Forgive me for including Qatar and Bahrain in the same paragraph. It's a bad habit that is shared by many. Qatar is a small but very wealthy country that borders Saudi Arabia on the west and the Perisan Gulf on the east. The Qataris have the highest per capita income in the world (according to Wikipedia), and Qatar itself has over 100 billion dollars in investments worldwide. Each year those investments grow from 30 to 40 billion dollars. The Qatari government, ostensibly loyal to Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani, has been accused of supporting extremist causes, including Hamas. The Qataris deny supporting any extremist groups in Gaza, Lebanon or the West Bank, but Qatar readily admits to supporting the Palestinian people. With regards to Syria, Qatar has been supporting various factions opposed to Syrian President Bashir al-Assad. In fact, Qatar is one of the nations included in President Obama's anti-ISIS air campaign coalition. I'm still trying to determine who exactly were the Qataris supporting before the air campaign? At first glance, it would appear that the Qataris were supporting ISIS, a claim which they deny. If Qatar was not supporting Assad, then who on the rebel side was receiving funding from Qatar? Sadly, the five Guantanamo-based terrorists that Barrack Obama traded for the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl were deposited in Qatar, with the understanding that the Qataris would keep them under thumb. Fat chance....its my understanding that at least two have already rejoined the struggle against "The Great Satan". We don't have much to say about Bahrain. In 2011, the ruling al-Khalifa house was given quite a scare with the almost spontaneous demonstrations in the capital city Manama. Eventually the police and riot control units were mobilized to disperse the crowds and they seemed to disappear as quickly as they assembled, although some human rights organizations claim that whenever people congregate in the same fashion, the police move in quickly. Half of Bahrain's 1.2 million population are working foreigners. Bahrain has a strong economy, built on oil just like its fellow Gulf States. Bahrain has arguably the closest relationship with the United States, as the U.S. Navy has a base in Bahrain and the U.S. military trains and equips the Bahraini military. Recently tensions arose between Qatar and Bahrain which resulted in the recalling of ambassadors; but that issue appears to have since resolved itself, and diplomatic personnel have returned to their jobs.
B. Oman Wikipedia
C. Kuwait Wikipedia
D. Qatar Wikipedia
E. Bahrain Wikipedia
When I was a young boy, I was fascinated with maps. I spent hours trying to determine the methodology for the color-coding of different countries, and also did my best to learn the correct pronunciations of the countless rivers, mountains, towns, and cities. When I grew a little older, I became interested in history, so the Atlas section of my family's Encyclopedias got put down, and the Encyclopedias themselves got put to use. Not surprisingly, I gravitated towards some places more than others (it might be déjà vu, reincarnation, or it might be coincidence, but most people who look at maps and globes will feel an odd familiarity with certain place names). I was drawn to a political entity known as "The Trucial States". I counted seven oddly-shaped little places, all hugging the south shore of the Persian Gulf. In my mind's eye, I pictured camels, men in white, flowing robes with rope-ring head pieces to keep their head-covering on, tents, and sand......lots and lots of sand. This description wasn't far from the truth back in the 1930s and 1940s. As far a colonial influences go, the Persian Gulf was a British lake. Following the death of the Ottoman Empire in 1922, the British happily moved into the void.
In most of Great Britain's colonies, calls for independence put pressure on the British government to relinquish control to the indigenous peoples. In some countries, such as Kenya, Nigeria and Ghana, the process was observed internationally, and there was great optimism that the transition from one form of government to another, would go smoothly. Interestingly enough, the Trucial States were in no hurry to separate from great Britain. The importance of oil in the region was on everyone's mind, and the various Shaykhs of the Trucial States enjoyed having the protection of the British navy and Air Force. It was actually the British who insisted on the Declaration of Independence in 1971. The seven Trucial States, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Fujairah, Ajman, Sharjah, Um al-Quwain, and Ras al-Khaimah, each had its own Shaykh. Representatives from the seven Shaykhdoms met and decided to form a federation, which called itself the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Abu Dhabi and Dubai are larger in size and population than the other five Emirates, and there was some concern that the smaller Shaykhdoms might feel slighted because of the greater influence that Dubai and Abu Dhabi naturally possessed. But it never really has been a problem. The Emirates are incredibly wealthy, and the largesse has been distributed in a smart and effectual manner. The UAE has a surprisingly large and well-equipped Armed Forces (thank you, United States), and shares one common currency. Certain political positions are granted on a rotating basis, while others are voted upon. The leaders of the UAE have traditionally been from Abu Dhabi and Dubai, but they have done such a stellar
 |
| Burj Khalifa Tower, Dubai |
I love Oman. Of all the gulf States, and I include Saudi Arabia and Yemen in this instance, Oman, has managed to follow its own, independent course. Oman, which has a relatively small population, has extremely good relations with the west. Sultan Qaboos, who deposed his father in 1970 during what has been Oman's only internal conflict of the modern era, has not shown a fear of modern development, and welcomes tourists from Europe and the United States. The women of Oman do not suffer under the same prohibitions as exist in Saudi Arabia. The Omani Army is well-trained and equipped (mostly by the Brits), but for practical purposes is too small to be useful for anything other than self-defense and internal conflict. I have a personal affinity for Oman because it is an absolutely lovely place. Muscat, the capital city, is filled with buildings that could have
.jpg) |
| Fort Al-Jalali, Muscat, Oman |
Kuwait reminds me of the opposite of Oman in many ways. Although the Al-Sabah family keeps a tight grip on power, the political environment in Kuwait has become much noisier as of late. The Sabahs have to contend with a very vocal women's right lobby and a population that at times appears sympathetic to Islamic extremist groups. Was it that long ago that Saddam Hussein's Army poured into Kuwait, emptied the stores and dumped babies out of incubators? A Kuwaiti friend of mine explained why a segment of the population of Kuwait has become sympathetic to the jihadis. From 1990 to the present, the United States military has had a large presence in Kuwait. Many Kuwaitis are not happy with the inevitable influence that this group of young Americans has had on their country. This includes the relaxation of attitudes regarding liquor consumption, the fraternization between Kuwaiti women and U.S. servicemen, and the unavoidable evolution of the Kuwaiti economy to accommodate all those U.S. dollars. Another unintended result of the U.S. presence is the perceived growth of the Christian community and the movement away from the teachings of Islam. A not insignificant percentage of native-born Kuwaitis are convinced that Kuwait needs to embrace a traditional brand of Islam that will remove the Game Boys, the mini-skirts and the six packs of Budweiser. It is rumored that a well-placed member of the Sabahs is very sympathetic towards conservative Islam and is working hard to influence his family. Help may be on the way. Its my understanding that the draw-down of U.S. military forces overseas includes most of our Army facilities in Kuwait.
Forgive me for including Qatar and Bahrain in the same paragraph. It's a bad habit that is shared by many. Qatar is a small but very wealthy country that borders Saudi Arabia on the west and the Perisan Gulf on the east. The Qataris have the highest per capita income in the world (according to Wikipedia), and Qatar itself has over 100 billion dollars in investments worldwide. Each year those investments grow from 30 to 40 billion dollars. The Qatari government, ostensibly loyal to Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani, has been accused of supporting extremist causes, including Hamas. The Qataris deny supporting any extremist groups in Gaza, Lebanon or the West Bank, but Qatar readily admits to supporting the Palestinian people. With regards to Syria, Qatar has been supporting various factions opposed to Syrian President Bashir al-Assad. In fact, Qatar is one of the nations included in President Obama's anti-ISIS air campaign coalition. I'm still trying to determine who exactly were the Qataris supporting before the air campaign? At first glance, it would appear that the Qataris were supporting ISIS, a claim which they deny. If Qatar was not supporting Assad, then who on the rebel side was receiving funding from Qatar? Sadly, the five Guantanamo-based terrorists that Barrack Obama traded for the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl were deposited in Qatar, with the understanding that the Qataris would keep them under thumb. Fat chance....its my understanding that at least two have already rejoined the struggle against "The Great Satan". We don't have much to say about Bahrain. In 2011, the ruling al-Khalifa house was given quite a scare with the almost spontaneous demonstrations in the capital city Manama. Eventually the police and riot control units were mobilized to disperse the crowds and they seemed to disappear as quickly as they assembled, although some human rights organizations claim that whenever people congregate in the same fashion, the police move in quickly. Half of Bahrain's 1.2 million population are working foreigners. Bahrain has a strong economy, built on oil just like its fellow Gulf States. Bahrain has arguably the closest relationship with the United States, as the U.S. Navy has a base in Bahrain and the U.S. military trains and equips the Bahraini military. Recently tensions arose between Qatar and Bahrain which resulted in the recalling of ambassadors; but that issue appears to have since resolved itself, and diplomatic personnel have returned to their jobs.
Sunday, September 14, 2014
Islamic Charities and Extremist Causes
Link: List of Suspect Islamic Charities
When I was a child, living in military housing in Bad Hersfeld, Germany, I remember hearing the news broadcasts about terrorist attacks in Europe and the Near East. In fact, hijackings were the rage amongst the bad guys, with their Palestinian scarves and AK-47s. I can recall my mother being particularly concerned with the German-based Baader-Meinhof gang because of their declared willingness to attack U.S. military targets. Sadly, since the days of my youth, we have never really moved out of the age of terrorism. From the outside looking in, it should not be surprising that terrorists have supporters, who argue that terrorism is the only way to give a voice to the oppressed. Islamic fundamentalist terrorists are always able to depend on the financial support of wealthy Muslims. For those working in the anti-terrorist community, it is vital to target and disrupt extremist support networks. Not surprisingly, funding for terrorism isn't conducted with the teller at the lobby of the local Chase Bank. Normally, funds being transferred on behalf of terrorist groups will usually have a "cover client". Law enforcement with an international reach, like the FBI and Interpol, are constantly monitoring the deposit, transfer and withdrawal of large sums of money. In the past, this job was much easier because the suspect transactions usually involved one of a group of suspect countries. The issue has since become much more complicated.
Terrorist groups need money. In the past, some of the most spectacular terrorist attacks have been conducted by relatively small groups. Smaller groups do not require as much financial support. But the reach of international terrorism has grown so much over the past few decades, that it has become necessary for the bad guys to find new methods of providing financial assistance to their operatives. One method of smuggling funds in and out of countries is to hide the money in places which are the least suspicious. Islamic extremists have been able to utilize numerous Islamic Charities in order to hide, launder, and deliver money. Interestingly enough, a number of the charities also raise funds for extremist activities. The FBI has identified and disrupted a number of Islamic charities (and educational foundations, for that matter) who were raising money in the United States to support terrorist groups. To be fair, its not only an issue of religion. In 1999, various wealthy Albanian-Americans were active in raising money for the Kosovo Liberation Army. And I'm sure the greatest donations to the Irish Republican Army originated in the United States (just a hypothesis).
In recent years, Qatar and Kuwait have come under scrutiny because of the suspected fund-raising activities of charities that are close to the royal families. Organizations who regularly function as a charity "during the day", but operate differently when attention is focused elsewhere, can be found throughout Europe, the United States, and the Near East. As the financial world becomes more and more connected and accessible, the easier it will be for these groups to raise and deliver funds in whatever direction they choose. At this point, its still necessary to have a decent "cover client". Some of the more well-known charities that have come under scrutiny include the Saudi Al-Haramain Foundation, the Benevolence International Foundation, the Global Relief Foundation, Islamic International Relief Organization, and Muslim Aid. Both the Global Relief Foundation and the Benevolence International Foundation, were located in the United States. Muslim Aid, located in London, was suspected of recruiting and providing support for extremist operations in Bosnia and Bangladesh.
International law enforcement has been successful in tracking the flow of money as it makes its way from terrorist supporters to the actual operatives. Court cases involving suspect charities are on the docket at this moment. Unfortunately, as law enforcement wraps up one group, another takes its place. And the bad guys are just as good as we are when it comes to maneuvering their way around the world of international finance.
When I was a child, living in military housing in Bad Hersfeld, Germany, I remember hearing the news broadcasts about terrorist attacks in Europe and the Near East. In fact, hijackings were the rage amongst the bad guys, with their Palestinian scarves and AK-47s. I can recall my mother being particularly concerned with the German-based Baader-Meinhof gang because of their declared willingness to attack U.S. military targets. Sadly, since the days of my youth, we have never really moved out of the age of terrorism. From the outside looking in, it should not be surprising that terrorists have supporters, who argue that terrorism is the only way to give a voice to the oppressed. Islamic fundamentalist terrorists are always able to depend on the financial support of wealthy Muslims. For those working in the anti-terrorist community, it is vital to target and disrupt extremist support networks. Not surprisingly, funding for terrorism isn't conducted with the teller at the lobby of the local Chase Bank. Normally, funds being transferred on behalf of terrorist groups will usually have a "cover client". Law enforcement with an international reach, like the FBI and Interpol, are constantly monitoring the deposit, transfer and withdrawal of large sums of money. In the past, this job was much easier because the suspect transactions usually involved one of a group of suspect countries. The issue has since become much more complicated.
Terrorist groups need money. In the past, some of the most spectacular terrorist attacks have been conducted by relatively small groups. Smaller groups do not require as much financial support. But the reach of international terrorism has grown so much over the past few decades, that it has become necessary for the bad guys to find new methods of providing financial assistance to their operatives. One method of smuggling funds in and out of countries is to hide the money in places which are the least suspicious. Islamic extremists have been able to utilize numerous Islamic Charities in order to hide, launder, and deliver money. Interestingly enough, a number of the charities also raise funds for extremist activities. The FBI has identified and disrupted a number of Islamic charities (and educational foundations, for that matter) who were raising money in the United States to support terrorist groups. To be fair, its not only an issue of religion. In 1999, various wealthy Albanian-Americans were active in raising money for the Kosovo Liberation Army. And I'm sure the greatest donations to the Irish Republican Army originated in the United States (just a hypothesis).
In recent years, Qatar and Kuwait have come under scrutiny because of the suspected fund-raising activities of charities that are close to the royal families. Organizations who regularly function as a charity "during the day", but operate differently when attention is focused elsewhere, can be found throughout Europe, the United States, and the Near East. As the financial world becomes more and more connected and accessible, the easier it will be for these groups to raise and deliver funds in whatever direction they choose. At this point, its still necessary to have a decent "cover client". Some of the more well-known charities that have come under scrutiny include the Saudi Al-Haramain Foundation, the Benevolence International Foundation, the Global Relief Foundation, Islamic International Relief Organization, and Muslim Aid. Both the Global Relief Foundation and the Benevolence International Foundation, were located in the United States. Muslim Aid, located in London, was suspected of recruiting and providing support for extremist operations in Bosnia and Bangladesh.
International law enforcement has been successful in tracking the flow of money as it makes its way from terrorist supporters to the actual operatives. Court cases involving suspect charities are on the docket at this moment. Unfortunately, as law enforcement wraps up one group, another takes its place. And the bad guys are just as good as we are when it comes to maneuvering their way around the world of international finance.
Thursday, September 11, 2014
The Arab Royal Families of the Persian Gulf (Part I)
(I have chosen to leave the link empty tonight. Anyone requiring additional information on these families can use Google, which is full of interesting, sometimes scandalous and often incorrect details.)
The Persian Gulf region is home to no-less than twelve royal families of Arab descent. I have chosen to not include the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, even though they descend from the Arabian Peninsula, because King Abdullah is not sitting on a mountain of oil. The royal families of Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Oman are in a class of wealth all to themselves. In the 1980s, when it became fashionable to flaunt money, media stories of Arab Shaykhs purchasing private jumbo jets, Beverly Hills property and entire retail store chains were a regular part of the news cycle. The environment has become a bit more discreet. The ruling families of the Gulf region are traditional and conservative, but it is an Islamic brand of conservatism that bears little resemblance to the Heritage Foundation and the Koch brothers. They must conduct a daily balancing act, between the need to be loyal to Islam and the fear of revolution from Islamic traditionalist within their own countries. All of the Gulf states have traditionally been allies of the United States and Europe. Americans and Europeans are the largest consumers of Arab oil (China may have moved into first place recently, but I don't think so), and the West has always more or less guaranteed the security of the various Gulf monarchies. One fact that you can bet on: the Gulf states close the wagons when necessary and will do what it takes to protect one another. In 1990 Saddam Hussein, claiming that the Emirate was actually a province of Iraq, invaded and occupied Kuwait. The other monarchies immediately began utilizing financial resources and diplomatic effort in order to send Saddam packing. They were successful. Today's post will focus on Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain, and tomorrow we will have a close look at Saudi Arabia, Oman and the UAE.
House of Sabah: The Kuwaiti royal family has extremely close ties to the United Kingdom (as do a number of other Gulf families). Not only does Kuwait sit on top of a significant amount of oil, it also happens to be located in a very sensitive and valuable piece of real estate. All sea-bound Iraqi oil must past through the Shatt al-Arab river at the northern shore of the Persian Gulf (the Shatt al-Arab is more of a confluence of the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers as opposed to an actual river). If Iran were so inclined (and the west did not intervene), the Iranian military is more than capable of occupying both the Shatt al-Arab and Kuwait, which would give the Iranians control of a nice chunk of the world's exportable petroleum. The Sabah family is actually not nearly as conservative as some of the other Gulf families. Recently, women were allowed to stand for Parliament (a rump Parliament totally subservient to the Sabah family, but still, its a start) and suggestions have been made about granting more rights to the thousands of foreign workers in Kuwait (who do all the nasty work so the wealthy Kuwaitis don't have to get their hands dirty). After the nightmare of Iraqi occupation, during which many Kuwaitis were executed, Kuwait made efforts to expand its military and strengthen its border with Iraq. But its a question of manpower. Kuwait will never have a population large enough to support a legitimate army of national defense. So Kuwait stays on the good side of the United States, at least diplomatically. On the other hand, the Kuwaitis allow extremists and fundamentalists to recruit and purchase equipment openly, and appear to support ISIL efforts to depose Bashir al-Assad in Syria. Its a tough choice for Kuwait. The economy flourishes when they allow an open market for services needed by terrorist groups, and the Sabahs have never been fans of the Ba'athists in Damascus or Baghdad. But the Sabahs have gotten in trouble before by trying to play both sides of the fence. If they allow enough of a presence of terrorists and like scum into Kuwait City (ostensibly for business purposes), they just might find themselves thrown out of the Palace by ISIL or Al Qaeda. And I for one would leave them to their devices.
House of Thani: I have always had a particular fascination for the Thani family and Qatar. Similar to the royal houses of the UAE, the Thanis have been around since the invention of the wheel, and they have always worn the pants in Doha. When Saddam invaded Iraq in 1990, the Qataris were a bit worried that, if unopposed, Saddam just might swallow up little Qatar as well. History and a review of Saddam's true intentions reveal that they didn't have much to worry about, but the Thanis are firm believers in "never hedging your bets". While cultivating a strong relationship with the United States military (Qatar is home to the U.S. Air Force Al Udeid Base, whose location is strategic, to say the least), The Qatari royal family is quite large, in proportion to the total population of Qatar. It is believed that one branch of the Thani family supports the Islamic fundamentalist cause. Terrorists have been known to use Qatar as one giant safe house, with particular terrorists (wanted for murder by Interpol and the United States) actually allowed into the palace to meet the Emir! Qatar does appreciate the money they receive as rent for the large U.S. Air Force Base, and also the protection from the bad guys in Teheran (and Baghdad), but the royal family is very happy to play both sides. One can only imagine if the CIA of old was allowed to conduct one night of multiple renditions in Qatar, how many squealing terrorist pigs we could pick up. One can dream.....
House of Khalifa: The current head of the Al-Khalifa family in Bahrain is Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa. Bahrain professes to be a teeny tiny bit democratic, in that issues pertaining to the state and the royal family are debated by the seventeen-strong Ruling Family Council. Unlike the other Gulf states, the Arab Spring of 2011 arrived in Bahrain with a vengeance. The people of Bahrain decided to join the party, and riots broke out in Manama, the capital city. The U.S. Naval Base (Naval Support Activity Bahrain) nor any other U.S. institutions were ever in any real danger. The anger that led to demonstrations seemed to be centered amongst students and young people. The Ruling Family Council, never very popular with the Qatari people, was taken by surprise. Although the situation was eventually brought under control, the Al-Khalifas were both scared and embarrassed. Since then the Prime Minister and government functionaries have been very patient with voices of discontent, and the family has made an effort to appear open to the public. Again, (interestingly enough), the anger of the demonstrators never really seemed focused on the American presence. The people were acting with one voice, asking for more authority in the government and more overall freedom. Bahrain seems more ripe for a Beatles revolution that it does an Islamic fundamentalist one.
The Persian Gulf region is home to no-less than twelve royal families of Arab descent. I have chosen to not include the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, even though they descend from the Arabian Peninsula, because King Abdullah is not sitting on a mountain of oil. The royal families of Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Oman are in a class of wealth all to themselves. In the 1980s, when it became fashionable to flaunt money, media stories of Arab Shaykhs purchasing private jumbo jets, Beverly Hills property and entire retail store chains were a regular part of the news cycle. The environment has become a bit more discreet. The ruling families of the Gulf region are traditional and conservative, but it is an Islamic brand of conservatism that bears little resemblance to the Heritage Foundation and the Koch brothers. They must conduct a daily balancing act, between the need to be loyal to Islam and the fear of revolution from Islamic traditionalist within their own countries. All of the Gulf states have traditionally been allies of the United States and Europe. Americans and Europeans are the largest consumers of Arab oil (China may have moved into first place recently, but I don't think so), and the West has always more or less guaranteed the security of the various Gulf monarchies. One fact that you can bet on: the Gulf states close the wagons when necessary and will do what it takes to protect one another. In 1990 Saddam Hussein, claiming that the Emirate was actually a province of Iraq, invaded and occupied Kuwait. The other monarchies immediately began utilizing financial resources and diplomatic effort in order to send Saddam packing. They were successful. Today's post will focus on Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain, and tomorrow we will have a close look at Saudi Arabia, Oman and the UAE.
House of Sabah: The Kuwaiti royal family has extremely close ties to the United Kingdom (as do a number of other Gulf families). Not only does Kuwait sit on top of a significant amount of oil, it also happens to be located in a very sensitive and valuable piece of real estate. All sea-bound Iraqi oil must past through the Shatt al-Arab river at the northern shore of the Persian Gulf (the Shatt al-Arab is more of a confluence of the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers as opposed to an actual river). If Iran were so inclined (and the west did not intervene), the Iranian military is more than capable of occupying both the Shatt al-Arab and Kuwait, which would give the Iranians control of a nice chunk of the world's exportable petroleum. The Sabah family is actually not nearly as conservative as some of the other Gulf families. Recently, women were allowed to stand for Parliament (a rump Parliament totally subservient to the Sabah family, but still, its a start) and suggestions have been made about granting more rights to the thousands of foreign workers in Kuwait (who do all the nasty work so the wealthy Kuwaitis don't have to get their hands dirty). After the nightmare of Iraqi occupation, during which many Kuwaitis were executed, Kuwait made efforts to expand its military and strengthen its border with Iraq. But its a question of manpower. Kuwait will never have a population large enough to support a legitimate army of national defense. So Kuwait stays on the good side of the United States, at least diplomatically. On the other hand, the Kuwaitis allow extremists and fundamentalists to recruit and purchase equipment openly, and appear to support ISIL efforts to depose Bashir al-Assad in Syria. Its a tough choice for Kuwait. The economy flourishes when they allow an open market for services needed by terrorist groups, and the Sabahs have never been fans of the Ba'athists in Damascus or Baghdad. But the Sabahs have gotten in trouble before by trying to play both sides of the fence. If they allow enough of a presence of terrorists and like scum into Kuwait City (ostensibly for business purposes), they just might find themselves thrown out of the Palace by ISIL or Al Qaeda. And I for one would leave them to their devices.
House of Thani: I have always had a particular fascination for the Thani family and Qatar. Similar to the royal houses of the UAE, the Thanis have been around since the invention of the wheel, and they have always worn the pants in Doha. When Saddam invaded Iraq in 1990, the Qataris were a bit worried that, if unopposed, Saddam just might swallow up little Qatar as well. History and a review of Saddam's true intentions reveal that they didn't have much to worry about, but the Thanis are firm believers in "never hedging your bets". While cultivating a strong relationship with the United States military (Qatar is home to the U.S. Air Force Al Udeid Base, whose location is strategic, to say the least), The Qatari royal family is quite large, in proportion to the total population of Qatar. It is believed that one branch of the Thani family supports the Islamic fundamentalist cause. Terrorists have been known to use Qatar as one giant safe house, with particular terrorists (wanted for murder by Interpol and the United States) actually allowed into the palace to meet the Emir! Qatar does appreciate the money they receive as rent for the large U.S. Air Force Base, and also the protection from the bad guys in Teheran (and Baghdad), but the royal family is very happy to play both sides. One can only imagine if the CIA of old was allowed to conduct one night of multiple renditions in Qatar, how many squealing terrorist pigs we could pick up. One can dream.....
House of Khalifa: The current head of the Al-Khalifa family in Bahrain is Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa. Bahrain professes to be a teeny tiny bit democratic, in that issues pertaining to the state and the royal family are debated by the seventeen-strong Ruling Family Council. Unlike the other Gulf states, the Arab Spring of 2011 arrived in Bahrain with a vengeance. The people of Bahrain decided to join the party, and riots broke out in Manama, the capital city. The U.S. Naval Base (Naval Support Activity Bahrain) nor any other U.S. institutions were ever in any real danger. The anger that led to demonstrations seemed to be centered amongst students and young people. The Ruling Family Council, never very popular with the Qatari people, was taken by surprise. Although the situation was eventually brought under control, the Al-Khalifas were both scared and embarrassed. Since then the Prime Minister and government functionaries have been very patient with voices of discontent, and the family has made an effort to appear open to the public. Again, (interestingly enough), the anger of the demonstrators never really seemed focused on the American presence. The people were acting with one voice, asking for more authority in the government and more overall freedom. Bahrain seems more ripe for a Beatles revolution that it does an Islamic fundamentalist one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)