U.S. Will Train New Syrian Army For Defense, No Offense

Links: A. U.S. To Train Syrians To Defend Territory


           B.  Lots Of Terrorist Training Camps In Iraq And Syria


           C. Al-Qaeda Reborn On The Indian Subcontinent


As I've said before, the first thing I do in the morning when I wake up is read the Long War Journal.  Previously I couldn't leave the house without a quick look at the Drudgereport.  Now I have doubled my morning reading selection.  To put it bluntly, the Long War Journal (LWJ) is in a class by itself.  I am so impressed with the real-time nature of the reporting, not to mention the amazing breadth of coverage.  Let me step away from brown-nosing the LWJ just long enough to get angry all over again.  According to the Stars and Stripes (see ref A), the surrogate New Syrian Army that was going to represent the good guys in the ground war against the Islamic Front (IS), will only be trained to defend territory.  They will not be trained or ordered to take any territory.  The first problem that jumped out at me is that we are still talking in "future" terms.  The New Syrian Army "WILL" only be trained to defend.  Are we to believe that the training of our surrogate saviors hasn't even started?  Aren't we already over a month into the air campaign?  The second, and much more disturbing bit of news from Stars and Stripes, is that when we finally get started with the training, it will consist exclusively of defensive warfare.  And what if, by the time our New Syrian Army is ready for battle, the IS has already occupied ninety percent of Syria.  I assume they will be content to just IGNORE the "defense only" New Syrian Army, who won't be able to attack unless someone attacks them?  If this development weren't so desperate and dangerous, it would be hilarious.  How can the military brass just accept these kind of "political" intrusions into military strategy?  Is there anyone at the Pentagon who is old enough to remember Vietnam?  DEFEND ONLY doesn't work in warfare, especially against an enemy like this.  Why would the Obama Administration adopt this approach?  Are they concerned about killing IS operatives?  After the last week of bombing at Kobani it would seem as if they don't mind killing the bad guys one bit.  So why are we going to spend billions of dollars training an Army for the sole purpose of "defense"?

Ref B should also come as no surprise.  The IS has occupied huge swaths of territory in eastern Syria and Western Iraq.  I'm a bit surprised that with at least five coalition Air Forces in the area (maybe only four; I keep adding the Brits out of habit), anything is able to move in the desert without getting blown to bits.  Even with a daily dose of Stars and Stripes and LWJ, I'm still totally confused about the organization of the air campaign.  What I do know is that the U.S. and France are willing and able to deploy over both Syria and Iraq.  Now here is where things get cloudy.  The Qatari and Emirati Air Forces, flying the shiniest and newest F16s, seem to pick and chose when they get involved.  They are willing to bomb some folks, but not bomb others.  Something smells rotten here (which is no surprise, since deodorant is definitely optional in this part of the world).  Since when does a military coalition partner turn in  a list of "folks we will bomb", and "folks we won't"?  Being the brilliantly suspicious asshole that I am, something tells me that both the Qataris and Emiratis are sympathetic to certain terrorist groups active in Syria.  Qatar's thinly-veiled support for Islamic Extremist groups is not a news flash (I'm sure glad we didn't deliver those five Guantanamo residents we traded for Bergdahl to a place like Qatar), but the Emiratis are usually much more discrete.  Either way, it may explain why the bad guys are able to open numerous training camps right under the eyes of our spy satellites.

Ref C is the least interesting of Thursday's "multiple Links" night.  It probably comes as no surprise to my well-read readers that Al-Qaeda (AQ) has found ripe fruit to pick amongst the one hundred thirty-three million mostly poor, Muslims of India.  Regardless of which party is in power in India, religious tension always seems to be boiling just below the surface.  I thought that the Congress Party, under the direction of Sonia Ghandi and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, would make a sincere effort to address some of the many legitimate grievances of the Muslim community, but it didn't happen.  Excuse the cliché, but India truly is like an Onion.  Once you peel it, you have another layer, and then another, and another....India is a nation built upon one set of hierarchies after another.  Addressing the grievances of the Muslim community will probably result in the continuation of bigotry in another part of Indian society.  Be that at is may, Osama bin-Laden recognized the opportunity to recruit and cause trouble here, and AQ has been a stealth presence in Muslim India for years.  The attention focused on AQ on the Indian subcontinent comes as AQ releases its newest online magazine, the English-language "Resurgence".  I've seen photos of the cover of the magazine and the insides, and it has an appealing, colorful modern look to it.  Then you read the articles.  Most of the magazine focuses on the Indian subcontinent, with writers offering explanation for the AQ plan to hijack Pakistani naval vessels.  The hijacked vessels were supposed to attack the U.S. Navy warships, but the plan never got off of the ground.  I don't understand why AQ has always persisted in offering explanations for its actions.  AQ despises the United States and the way Americans live their lives.  AQ also resents the influence and the presence of the United States around the world, financially, militarily and diplomatically.  I think that covers it.  "Resurgence" does include a very interesting article (with a nice graphic) on what targets would cause the most damage to American interests.  They conclude that disrupting the flow of oil would be the most effective way to hurt the U.S.  Obviously they have some real deep thinkers over there at AQ University.  Back on the subcontinent, the potential is great for an escalation of AQ-sponsored violence.  In fact, its inevitable. India has an effective, well-run internal law enforcement agency (the Central Bureau of Investigation - CBI), and I would not envy any Indian AQ members who get picked up by the CBI.  If AQ orchestrates a large-scale attack, the Indian police will lock-up first and ask questions later.  India has a relatively new government and it will be very interesting to observe how the New Democratic Alliance (NDA) (basically the BJP and a handful of like-minded parties) approaches this issue, and how they respond to the inevitable AQ attack. 

Questions About Christian Community in Syria

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

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

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

Should U.S. Invite Iran To Join Anti-IS Coalition?

Link: Iran And The Nuclear Issue: Has IS Made All Things Negotiable?


(Terrorist groups cannot be defeated.  They must be destroyed, obliterated, erased to the last man and woman.  The one that is left alive may be the one with the silver tongue and the gift of manipulation.  In a matter of months you have the same problem all over again.*)

(This part of the world is a bad place for long memories.*)

First and foremost, can we all agree on what to call the Islamic State of the Levant?  I'm still hearing ISIS, the Administration seems stuck on ISIL, and those of us reasonable folks in the blogosphere prefer simply the Islamic State (IS).  Yesterday I wrote a wonderful post focusing on the various independence movements in Europe and what can be expected following the Scotland referendum.  And no one noticed.  Okay, my close friends, who are always ready to lend support, and few new acquaintances I've met through the blog, had a look.  But that's about it.  Interestingly enough, when I post comments on IS or Ukraine, I get a very healthy response.  I get the message.  But the reality is, I will not be posting about terrorism everyday.  I am interested in events on every continent.  The world is full of juicy stuff to discuss.  So forgive me in advance if I post about elections in Kenya or instability in Thailand.  Hopefully I will attract more and more viewers who, like me, see the world as one big neighborhood.  Its best to think that way, because in 2014, you never know when your neighbors are going to show up for a visit.

The air campaign to disrupt the activities of IS has begun.  Today, the Iraqi Prime Minister announced publicly that our efforts so far had been "just for show".  Jeez, these Iraqis are an ungrateful lot.  The bombings conducted to date have not been "just for show".  I guess he was pissed that all the targets were in Syria.  God forbid that the Iraqi Army go in and take care of its own business.  A strategic review of the targets (which probably shouldn't be available to the press, but what heck, its there so I'm gonna look at it) demonstrated that a plan has been formulated to sever the communication and supply lines of the IS.  Even more promising, the air campaign is targeting oil fields that were being exploited by IS (I'm still bloody curious to know who was purchasing the oil; it could've been the French- does anyone smell cheese?). 

On Fox News today, Rear Admiral John Kirby was very clear in repeating the Administration's policy of "no U.S. ground troops", so until the New Syrian Army is ready for combat (4 months?), we have to be content with the bombing campaign.  Is it possible that the IS could feel pressure from unexpected enemies?  The New Syrian Army is not the only force opposing the IS.  Discounting the regular Syrian Army, the IS has to contend with the Kurdish Pesh Merga and the Iraqi Army.  At this point, I believe the Pesh Merga has its hands full defending Kurdish territory, and the Iraqi Army has been one tremendous disappointment after another.  Which brings us to Iran.  The Iranians have been keeping a close eye on events in both Iraq and Syria. The IS has definite Sunni sympathies, which explains why Iran dispatched units of the Republican Guard to Iraq last month, ostensibly to protect Shia holy sites.  When the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, the Iranians were apoplectic.  They were annoyed down to their shorts that once again, "the great Satan" was just a booger-flick away from Teheran.  Interestingly enough, this time around the Iranian government has been much more subdued regarding U.S. military activity in their backyard.  No doubt they would be glad to see the IS destroyed.  This week, Iranian President Rouhani said that he is seeking a "win-win" deal for his nation.  Having the threat of the IS removed and having international approval to expand Iran's nuclear program would definitely qualify as a "win-win" deal.  Not since Rafsanjani has an Iranian diplomat flirted so brazenly with the great Satan.  "Trust building", "cooperation," and "the beginning of mutual cooperation" were key phrases in Rouhani's comments.  If the Iranians are serious, and would join the fight against the IS, just how much freedom of action vis-à-vis the enrichment of uranium are they considering?

The Obama Coalition (40 nations and counting the last I checked) acknowledges that ground forces will eventually be necessary to defeat the IS.  Since the Administration has provided a timetable of "four to five months" training before the New Syrian Army is ready for combat, is it reasonable to consider the idea of Iranian military intervention?  Iran has the military capability to defeat the IS in short order.  During the last year's Islamic Republic Day parade, I think I counted somewhere in the area of fifteen million ready-and-willing members of the Revolutionary Guard (an exaggeration to make a point), so the Iranians clearly have the ground forces.  With the coalition conducting air sorties, the Iranian Army could fold up the IS before the New Syrian Army unpacks its boots.  Is this suggestion really that far-fetched? 

The idea of rapprochement between Teheran and Washington has been floated numerous times.  If the Iranians offered to join the coalition with no preconditions,  the Obama Administration could wrap up this initiative in a nice package.  I must admit, IS or no IS, the world would be a better place if Iran and the United States could bury the hatchet (into the Islamic State instead of each other).  But the Iranians won't join the coalition without serious incentives.  First and foremost, the Iranians want a free hand to enrich uranium as they see fit.  The Iranians know that the European powers would fall in line behind the United States in the UN, if the Americans decided to ease up on the uranium enrichment issue.  It would have been much easier for Obama to have offered such an incentive and relied on the Iranians to deal with IS on the ground (instead of this headache of trying to train the New Syrian Army).  But just how realistic is this scenario?

It will never happen.  In fact, I doubt the Obama Administration ever really gave it much thought.  Even if the United States agreed to allow Iran to enrich as much uranium as it wants, it would be impossible for Iran to climb down the mountain of anti-U.S. rhetoric it has created over the years.  Many of the Iranian people still get off on that "America is the great Satan" stuff (we probably would to if we'd been listening to it non-stop for thirty-five years).  Obama would have a tough sell at home as well.  The American public is aware of Iran's support for Hezbollah and a bunch of other nasty groups.  Interestingly enough, the American people probably would have moved past the memory of the embassy seizure in 1979, except that the Iranians keep reminding us about it.  Americans see Iran for what it is, a Shia Islamic Republic, which continues to repress its own people.  I think Obama would have had great difficulty bringing the Iranians into the coalition, even if he would have convinced the UN and Europe to ease up on the enrichment issue.

I think we are stuck with the new Syrian Army, come what may.  I believe that the United States and Iran will mend fences in my lifetime, but not until a change of government in Teheran.  For now, the Iranians are content to sit back and watch what happens in Syria and Iraq.  The Iranian nuclear program is a subject that deserves its own post.  Keep reading, it will make its appearance soon.

* Quotes from the soon-to-be published "Mukhabarat, Baby!"

The Politization of the ISIS Threat: Business as Usual.

Link: Juan Williams says ISIS will Benefit Democrats in Midterms


Former CIA Director Panetta Critical of Iraq Pullout



The first news story that grabbed my attention today focused on threats made by the Islamic State (IS) to French, Australian and American citizens, and it came as no surprise.  IS is not pleased with the ongoing air campaign which has disrupted IS attempts to establish itself in oil-rich areas of Kurdistan.  It is estimated that IS already earns over one billion dollars a day in oil revenue.  By the way, who is purchasing oil from IS?  Shouldn't our military resources be focused on shutting down this IS cash cow?  Now that kind of valuable intelligence would make an Accessions List sparkle (excuse the Agency insider comment).  As for the threats against Yanks, Frenchies, and Aussies, take it at face value.  This part of the world is known for drama.  Remember the Iraqi Spokesman who, during Operation Enduring Freedom, continued to broadcast about Iraqi battlefield victories, as Abrams tanks were pulling up outside his office?  In warfare, bullets are a lot more dangerous than words.  The second article that grabbed my attention highlighted comments by Fox News contributor Juan Williams on the IS issue and how it plays into U.S. politics.  Williams hypothesized that President Obama's approval ratings would improve because of his declaration of "war" against the IS. Williams added that Obama's improved image would benefit Democratic Senate and House candidates in this year's November midterm elections.  I normally disagree with Juan regarding policy, but he is usually on the money with political forecasting.  I agree that an increased military effort in support of our national security is a no-lose proposition for President Obama.  But it doesn't make me happy.

I am one of those folks who believe that Hurricane Sandy helped President Obama win re-election in 2012.  Mitt Romney playing defense for the last month and bizarre instances of voter fraud in key battleground states also played a role, but in the end President Obama won re-election in 2012, and it appears he might be about to do it again, albeit in a different political venue.  I really like Juan Williams.  I have heard he is a true gentleman and I believe he plays his part of the Fox News "counter argument" in fine fashion.  But I am thoroughly disturbed with the glee he seems to express, as he pronounces that, yet again, smoke and mirrors will decide a major U.S. election.  I did not vote for Barack Obama, and I am not a supporter of his policies.  Oddly enough, considering the subject of this blog, foreign policy is not my "Obama complaint".  Simply put, he has taken our grandchildren's credit card out of the White House wallet, and has charged up seventeen trillion dollars in debt in six years.  This is not a GOP-doctored number.  Check it out for yourself.  Now what have we purchased that was worth going into debt (much of it to China) for seventeen trillion dollars (and counting)?  The economy is sluggish, employment figures are disturbing, and we keep on spending.  Be that as it may, I write this blog to comment on issues of intelligence and international conflict, not domestic economics.  In my position as host of this blog, I have opined on more than one occasion that I believe the Obama Administration has not handled the "IS" issue very well.  As former CIA Director Leon Panetta (an Obama appointee) has stated, we should not have left Iraq without some military presence in place.  In the second link provided above, Panetta argues that the IS has become an issue because of Obama's desire to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan quickly.  Panetta also argues that the Administration should have made the decision last summer to support the New Syrian Army (NAS). I don't agree with Panetta on the last point, but I am very concerned by what appears to be a military policy that is designed to affect U.S. elections.  No doubt the Democrats were not seeding the Tropics to create Hurricane Sandy and give Obama the opportunity to look "presidential" just prior to a national election, but in this instance I would not be surprised if politics was at play in forming military policy.  And I am frustrated by the voting public for being such a patsy.

U.S. Air Force strikes on IS positions in Iraq and Syria will make nice clips for the evening news.  Every American (count me in) will no doubt find some satisfaction in our response to the murders of James Foley and Steven Sotloff.  But would we be engaged in this bombing campaign if we weren't approaching a pivotal election?  Why am I so cynical?  I have trouble supporting a policy that has so many questions and so few answers.  More importantly, I believe our policy to arm surrogates to fight the ground campaign of this conflict is a repeat of past errors.  One of the hallmarks of this Administration has been its unwillingness to provide a complete policy for any of its initiatives.  I will repeat a few of the questions I have been asking over the past week.  Will IS also be engaging regular Syrian forces with the weapons we provide?  Of course they will, and the Russians, with their guy Assad sitting in Damascus, will respond.  I do not believe that we should be involved in the Syrian civil war.  But we will be, once the New Syrian Army turns its focus away from the IS and towards its real target, the Ba'ath regime in Damascus.  Call me old school, but I believe wars are terrible things and should be fought with all vigor and ended as soon as possible.  If the IS is a threat to our national security, then we need to revisit the original decision to high-tail it out of Iraq, and hit IS from three directions: Iraq, Kurdistan, and Syria.  We should use every appropriate military tool to obliterate this group.  It is possible to defeat an ideology; we ended the scourge of National Socialism (Nazis) in 1945, and we discredited communism with the fall of the Berlin Wall.  If we attack the IS with this kind of approach, we will discourage the next nut job who wants to take us on.  Instead, we have an air campaign, conducted alongside our French friends (again, this conflict is making for some strange bedfellows), and a surrogate army of ex-Syrian soldiers to bleed out for us "in proxy".  I believe the New Syrian Army, trained and equipped by the U.S., alongside an air campaign that destroys the IS supply routes, will be successful.  And this is where the problem begins.  What if our surrogate is successful?  Do we recognize them as the next Syrian government?  Do we immediately end all military support and say "you've gotten all your getting from us, folks- good luck?"  Again, no answers.  Actually, that's not true.  Someone may proffer up a vague response or two, but the real issue is, NO POLICY.

Juan Williams is a Democrat, and understandably looks forward to the political "bump" the Democrats will gain from the image of a "wartime President".  But its an illusion.  We all know that Obama is no Hawk.  But he can play one on TV for a while in order to win an election.  I hope Juan is wrong.  I hope that the Democrats don't keep control of the Senate, so that I don't have to listen to people regret their vote for the next two years.  President Obama does not appear to have a "complete" strategy for entering into this conflict with the IS.  But he is very strategic when it comes to the political battlefield.  I am very concerned by Obama's repeated threats to use Executive Authority to create and enforce domestic policy.  Most important is the issue of Immigration; are we are going to reward folks whose presence in the United States is predicated on breaking our laws?  Any form of Amnesty will only increase the flow of undocumented aliens crossing into the United States from Mexico; its not Rocket Science.  So it becomes an issue of National Security.  The only reason Obama is able to accuse Congress of not doing its job, is because the Democratically-controlled Senate under Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, refuses to let any House-passed legislation reach the floor of the Senate.  It gives Obama the "manufactured" authority to act unilaterally.  If the GOP controls both the House and the Senate, Obama will be forced to either pass or veto all sorts of issue-driven legislation.  And the reasonable and well-thought House Immigration Bill provides an alternative to Amnesty.  President Obama will no longer be able to tell the American people that he must use Executive Authority because Congress is lazy.  Basically, we would have a government that utilizes the "checks and balances" theory of administration, which is the way its supposed to be.

A Brief Look at al-Nusra and Khorasan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are We Comfortable Paying Others To Confront Our Threats?

Link: What Is The Free Syrian Army?

House Votes to Arm "Free Syrian Army".


We are living in fascinating times.  The President of the United States has declared that the Islamic State (IS) terrorist group (which was originally Al-Qaeda in Iraq, then morphed into Islamic State of Al-Sharm, followed by Islamic State of the Levant) is a threat to the security of the United States, and that the United States will not use ground forces to combat IS.  Apparently IS has become too organized and prolific to destroy by bombing alone, so the United States decides to fund, train and equip the "New Syrian Army" (NSA; see first link).  I assume that the Administration huddled with intel folks to determine which anti-IS element in Syria would be the most palatable to the American people.  The Administration chose the group that was less likely to morph into an Islamic fundamentalist movement on down the road.  NSA traces it roots to a few disgruntled members of the Syrian Army officer cadre.  They have had success recruiting not only former Syrian soldiers, but also Kurds, Alawis, Palestinians, Turkmens, and Druze.  Considering the majority of members (and the leadership) are Sunni Muslims, the inclusion of other ethnic and religious fighters is an important element.  IS conducts itself as a functioning army, and has occupied a number of cities throughout Syria.  On a whole, the territory controlled by the NAS pales in comparison to areas occupied by IS and regular Syrian Army.  This fact demonstrates the traditional military perspective of NAS.  It is more important to control the transportation and communication nodes (read: cities) than it is to possess large swaths of desert.  Up to this point, the NAS does not appear to have a religious motive.  The goal has always been the removal from power of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the Ba'ath Party.  Numerous human rights groups claim that NAS has participated in war crimes, but finding someone in this mess who hasn't would be an impossible task.

The Obama Administration does not expect NAS to ratchet up its activities until equipment has been delivered and training has been conducted (I assume the training will be conducted by elements of both the CIA and the U.S. Army).  A high percentage of NAS troops are former military or have military training already, so this should accelerate the process.  It appears that the "four month" mark is when we should expect to see an increase in NAS activity.  Until then, the United States Air Force and France's Armee de l'Air (and whoever else Obama can convince to join his coalition) will be bombing the shit out of IS targets. Military strategy argues that a focused bombing campaign should prioritize supply routes, but I think we will have enough firepower to hit the enemy everywhere.  If we stay committed and manage to round up a few allies, the NAS can be molded into a first-rate military force.  No doubt that if the Obama Administration had taken the advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and stayed in Iraq long enough to complete the training of the Iraqi military, we wouldn't have to take this "Mujahideen"-like risk.  When a decision is made to arm a foreign element with weapons paid for by the U.S. people, we assume the responsibility of those weapons.  Its a different circumstance altogether when military equipment from a U.S. company is purchased by another nation (such as F16 to Taiwan and Black Hawk Helicopters to Austria).  In reality, we have no idea what will become of the equipment we provide to the NAS (I for one was not expecting the Iraqi Army to desert in mass exodus prior to its first engagement, leaving tons of U.S.-supplied military hardware for IS to pick up).  I am also concerned about what the NAS will become if it succeeds in toppling Assad.  The leaders of the NAS are all former Syrian military officers and during their careers, must have been exposed to all sorts of corruption and nepotism. 

Are we involved with the NAS to destroy the IS or to topple the Assad regime?  Will IS have two enemies on the battlefield?  Does the Obama Administration intend to fund the NAS until both Assad and IS are defeated?  Why haven't these legitimate questions been addressed?  As is the habit with this Administration, we seem to be diving head-long into something with no real end-game strategy.  Would we recognize an NAS government, or would we demand elections?  What if the NAS says, screw your elections, we are the government now (which is what will happen if we fund the NAS enough to defeat both IS and the regular Syrian Army).  Has anyone in the Administration or Congress commented on how much this effort will cost the American taxpayer?  In recent months (with help from Hillary's buddy Vlad Putin in Moscow, no doubt) the regular Syrian Army has reconstituted itself.  Assad's Army has aggressively and ruthlessly fought for every inch of ground, and shows no sign of internal conflict.  I can only assume that the Administration, in choosing to back the NAS, envisions a scenario in which elements of the Syrian Army desert and join the NAS.  As this conflict grows, the NAS must formulate a plan to combat both the regular Syrian Army and IS.  Of course, Washington DC is only concerned with destroying IS.  Has the NAS agreed to focus exclusively on OUR enemy (IS), or will the weapons we provide be aimed at elements of the regular Syrian Army?  Will the U.S. Air Force also target regular Syrian Army positions?  What if a NAS unit is surrounded by regular Syrian Army forces.  Will the U.S. (and coalition) air elements intervene?  If we do, then I can assure you, the Russians will have something to say.  Will the NAS pursue IS targets into Iraq?  The decision to use NAS as surrogate ground forces in our war against IS comes with a nightmare collection of "what ifs".

During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union faced-off in many locations around the world.  On more than one occasion that United States and the Soviets came to near-blows over issues in the Near East.  The U.S. supported Israel and the Russians provided arms to the Syrians and the Egyptians.  Although the Cold War has ended (per se), Russia continues to view Syria as a close ally.  Sooner or later our involvement in the Syrian conflict will compel Putin to increase Russian support for the Assad regime.  Arming NAS has the real possibility of bringing us into conflict with Russia.  The Administration has gone to great lengths not to antagonize the Russians in eastern Europe (sanctions only-still no military aid for Ukraine).  If the Russians stand aside and allow the NAS to form a government, with the Israelis be comfortable with another militarized Syria on its border?  In a worst-case scenario, we could see U.S. equipment handled by NAS being used against Israelis, who might also be carrying U.S. military hardware.

It must be apparent that I do not support the arming of NAS to combat the IS.  Too many times we have provided equipment that seems to fall into the hands of our enemies (or our friends become our enemies, as in the case of the Afghani Mujahideen).  Also I am offended to the core that we would consider paying others to do our dirty work.  If the IS is a threat to the security of the United States, then the IS should be destroyed by the U.S. military.  Isn't that the raison d'etre of our armed forces? Have we reached the point of decadence in our society that we feel others should be paid to die in proxy?  Here's a novel idea: why not take all the money that we spend to fund defense, and use it to pay others to fight our wars?  I believe IS is a threat to our national security, as Al-Qaeda continues to be.  But once we have made the decision that a group is a direct threat to our freedom, then we need to utilize every resource we have at our disposal to destroy the enemy quickly.  Wars must be fought to the fullest, and brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible.  History shows us that this method of approach to war will result in the fewest collateral casualties.  When conflicts are drawn out, people suffer.  I believe we should use ground forces to attack IS from all directions, including Syria, Iraq and Kurdistan.  We should use as many troops as necessary, in concert with our military air elements, to finish the job quickly.  IS must be obliterated.  If we attack the IS target full-force, with our NAS and Kurdish allies, we would destroy all remnants of IS and Al-Qaeda.  The fact that we did not completely destroy Al-Qaeda in Iraq is why we must now deal with the IS.  In fact, we are pulling out of Afghanistan while Al-Qaeda hides in Pakistan.  Once we are gone, the Taliban will welcome al-Qaeda back, and Afghanistan will join Iraq as diplomatic failures of the U.S. government.  Our young men and women in uniform did an outstanding job in both Iraq and Afghanistan, only to be let-down by the fat politicians back in Washington DC.

The use of NAS to combat IS is nothing more than the contracting out of mercenaries to fight our conflict.  If NAS is successful against IS, will they return the equipment we provided, or will it be used to strengthen their hold on Syria?  Will a NAS government in Damascus be hostile to Israel?  There is no doubt in my mind.  As was the case in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have no way of determining what kind of government we are helping to create.  I don't like the NAS.  As recent members of the regular Syrian Army, they can be no strangers to lobbing rounds of ammunition down on Israeli Kibbutz settlements in northern Israel.  Arming the NAS is a textbook example of  "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".  I have three critical questions for the Obama Administration.  Will NAS be continuing its campaign against the Assad regime while also attacking the IS?  Will the U.S. (and coalition) Air Force be targeting regular Syrian Army elements?  What is the diplomatic strategy for the Levant after IS has been defeated?