Iraqi military and special police preparing assault to retake Ramadi.

Link: Iraqi government forces close in on Ramadi.


With recent events in Syria and Paris dominating the international press, the Iraqi government's much-publicized offensive to retake Ramadi is no longer front-page news.  Actually, the struggle to retake Ramadi has taken much longer than the government and the Iraqi people expected.  Combat around Baiji and in the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq have made for much more interesting journalism, as the average person begins to consider that the Ramadi campaign has become a stalemate.  Fortunately, in the last few days, news reports from the Iraqi government and the Pentagon indicate that the Iraqi Armed Forces are getting very close to recapturing the capital city of Anbar Province.  It is estimated that ISIS has roughly 600 to 1000 fighters still hunkered down in the few downtown neighborhoods that government forces have yet to reoccupy.  The fact that the Iraqi government is determined to complete this operation according to plan, with minimal casualties and damage to infrastructure, is very encouraging.  Its true that the campaign to retake the city has not followed the most ideal timetable, but the Iraqi authorities have been able to carefully search areas formally occupied by ISIS, in order to remove any improvised explosive devices or abandoned munitions.

Last Wednesday, Iraqi forces took possession of the Palestine Bridge in the northwest part of the city.  The bridge, which spans the Euphrates River, was a vital link to food and other supplies for ISIS.  The coalition air campaign continues to harass ISIS by strafing supply routes and bombing key defensive positions.  In fact, air support has proven particularly effective in destroying explosives that were purposely planted in abandoned structures in the downtown part of the city.  Aggressive action by the coalition air support has been instrumental in saving the lives of ground troops, as explosives disposal teams prepare to enter neighborhoods that have been cleared of ISIS snipers.  Iraqi authorities fully expect the remaining ISIS operatives to fight to the death.

Once the military campaign to liberate Ramadi is complete, the Iraqi military will focus on bringing relief to Haditha, which although occupied by Iraqi forces, has been under assault by ISIS for most of the year.  In recent weeks, coalition air attacks have successfully targeted ISIS positions and prevented the delivery of supplies to ISIS operatives near Haditha.  Al-Asad Air Base in outside of Haditha, and presents a valuable target for ISIS.  U.S. troops have been present at Al-Asad for some time, providing important training to Iraqi personnel.  For some inexplicable reason, the Obama Administration made no attempt to keep this particular bit of information confidential.  Once the international media got wind of the presence of U.S. troops at Al-Asad, ISIS wasn't far behind.  Can you imagine if ISIS were to overrun that base and take our young men and women prisoner?  Fortunately, recent combat in the Haditha area has severely compromised ISIS' ability to conduct offensive activity.  No doubt the Iraqis are also determined to remove ISIS from Fallujah, which sits northeast of Ramadi and is actually closer to Baghdad (as the crow flies).  The various Shi'a militias were more-or-less assigned the task of retaking Fallujah, while the Iraqi Regular Army and Special Police targeted Ramadi.  At various times over the past six months, it appeared that Fallujah would fall first.  The fact that Ramadi will indeed be reoccupied by government forces before the Iranian-backed militias have removed ISIS from Fallujah will be celebrated in Baghdad, where the populace has begun to voice its annoyance at what is perceived to be Iranian interference in Iraqi affairs.

Russia attempts to block IMF lending to Ukraine as Russian separatists violate ceasefire.

Link: Russia attempts to disrupt Ukrainian IMF loan.

It took two months for Russian-backed separatists to violate the latest ceasefire in eastern Ukraine.  The only surprise was that the ceasefire lasted as long as it did, but we can probably blame the delay on Russia's current pre-occupation in Syria.  The government of Ukraine and the various Russian-backed separatist groups in the east have agreed to two previous ceasefires, at least by my count.  In every instance, the apparently inevitable violation was committed by the separatists, which begs the obvious question: why does Kiev keep making agreements with these jerks?  Simply put, Ukraine has no choice.  President Petro Poroshenko has yet to implement any personal strategy for resolving this conflict.  Every decision from Ukraine's corner has been made by Kiev's European allies.  Ukraine is in no position to ignore the "advice" put forward by the U.S., French and German diplomats, and we all know that these three would just as soon see Ukraine completely overrun with Russians before agreeing to any type of aggressive military action.  Not that the Ukrainian Army is in a position to conduct a serious offensive in the southeast.  Repeated requests for military aid, to the U.S. in particular, have been denied, as the U.S. strives to encourage a more "peaceful" approach the to crisis.  Russia has taken full advantage of the prostrate policy currently put forth by the Europeans and the Obama Administration to occupy strategic villages and all-but off the vital port city of Mariupol from the rest of Ukraine.  During the last three years, Russia and her surrogates in eastern Ukraine have been able to dictate the time and pace of negotiations and military action to suit Russia's international strategy.  Expect the Ukrainian separatists to step-up military action in an attempt to occupy as much territory as possible before the election of a new, less-accommodating administration following the November 2016 presidential elections in the United States.

It appears that Russia's very recent diplomatic effort to interfere with Ukraine's relationship with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has failed.  Russia has been known for this type of occasional diplomatic overreach, and who  can blame Moscow for trying?  Internationally, Russia continues to court various U.S. allies.  Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to enhanced military ties with the Emir of Kuwait, and Putin's envoy to Afghanistan has announced preparations to sell Hind Attack Helicopters and small arms to Kabul.  Russia has also reached out to Tunisia and Algeria, expressing the desire for increased cooperation in the fight against international terror.  The U.S. Department of State will respond to these overtures with some belated offer of aid or a concession on a trade treaty,  but the real problem for the United States has nothing to do with a Russian agreement with Kuwait or Helicopter sales to Afghanistan.  The fact is, Russia is running diplomatic circles around the U.S., and is showing no hesitation to flirt with long-time U.S. partners.  In the past, the United States would have reacted swiftly to Russian diplomatic advances to an ally by taking the same action.  The Bush or Reagan presidencies might have responded by agreeing to sell weapons to Ukraine, or by increasing the presence of U.S. troops in eastern Europe.  At present, the U.S. has no response to these Russian overtures.  Russia continues to express an interest in forming a security alliance of sorts vis-à-vis Syria, to include the U.S. and its allies.  Washington DC has responded in a positive way to this potential agreement, but many suspect it is nothing more than a Russian distraction.   

Thoughts on the Nuclear Treaty with Iraq and partisanship in general.

Link: Netanyahu voices concern over removal of sanctions.

Ever year our nation seems to become more politically partisan, with everyone claiming to be independent, but Independent candidates getting no traction whatsoever.  No doubt if an Independent (meaning not Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian) candidate arrived on the scene who had Donald Trump's bank account, we might see a very competitive election.  But the system is built to support the two existing parties and the established methods for raising campaign funds.  Independent candidates can never expect to come close to raising the kind of money that a serious Republican or Democrat can.  Aside from that fact, we don't believe an Independent candidate would be representative of the United States electorate, anyways.  In 2015, we are an opinionated nation, and people feel very strongly about the validity of their perspectives.  w guess we're no different.  When we hear someone expressing an opposite viewpoint, we do my best to give them a fair shake. But at the end of the day, after almost half-a-century on this planet, we have confidence in our opinions.  And something important we've learned along the way: don't get mouthy and loud about issues in which you have no knowledge or experience.  Here at "Mukhabarat, Baby!", we have made a point to avoid posting opinionated commentaries regarding the United States economy.  Sure, we have opinions, but I'm not an economist.  I do, however, consider myself to be knowledgeable on issues of diplomacy and foreign policy.  Some readers may consider our site to be partisan,  but you can be sure that we support our positions with evidence.

I recently read an article which introduced ten retired U.S. Army Generals who had come out in support of the Obama Administration's Nuclear Treaty with Iran.  Its our understanding that the United States Army has hundreds of certified, true Generals among us, the vast majority of them retired.  Something tells me, that if I made a bit of an effort (and you know, to protect this president, the media would make the effort), I could round up ten Generals who believe that the Reptilian People live amongst us.  In other words, finding ten Generals to agree on something doesn't get you very far, especially when we are considering something as patently awful as this Treaty.  The three issues that bother me the most about this treaty have nothing to do with the controversial subject of nuclear proliferation.

My first complaint has to do with a handful of U.S. citizens that are currently locked away in Iranian prisons.  Not surprisingly, each one is being accused of having insulted Islam, being an enemy of the Islamic Republic, or a spy for the Zionists, or just a plain spy, period.  The charges are bogus; they are in jail because they are U.S. citizens, and the Iranians thought that they might come in handy someday as bargaining chips of some sort.  Normally, given the seriousness of the negotiations between the United States and Iran, you would have expected U.S. negotiators to have tried tooth-and-nail to make the release of our citizens part of any agreed-upon treaty.  Can you believe that this president was so obsessed with the issue of his legacy that he allowed the Iranians to remove the subject of the prisoners/hostages from the negotiations, without the slightest complaint?  How can a sitting U.S. president agree to a treaty with a foreign power that holds U.S. citizens in its jails, as hostages?  The Administration has gone on record stating that the charges against the prisoners are false, and yet they were forsaken.  What if that were your parent, or your sister, sitting in that Iranian jail?  I wonder if they had promised to vote Democrat in the next election, if he might have tried a bit harder to have them included........

My second complaint: what steps has Iran taken that justify the lifting of weapons sanctions?  A nation EARNS removal from a weapons embargo, at least that's the way it's been up to now.  Does Iran continue to financially support terror groups around the world?  Absolutely, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen (dumping the Houthis in with Hezbollah is a bit of a stretch...we ask your indulgence).  Iran also provides tremendously important support to the flailing regime of Bashir al-Assad in Syria.  Where else does Iran export weapons and warfare?  Iraq is a good example; the Shi'a militias/Popular Mobilization Units (PMUs), which have become so important in the struggle against ISIS in Iraq, include the Badr Organization, Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq, Mahdi Army, and Kata'ib Hezbollah.  Each group is trained and supplied by Iran.  As for the Iranian Armed Forces, they are in serious need of updated materials.  The Iranian Air Force is still flying a combination of ancient U.S.-made F5s (from the days of the Shah), and Migs that it stole from Iraq during the initial Gulf War.  And unlike the Chinese, Indians, Israelis and South Africans, the Iranians have had little success utilizing older equipment, and creating an indigenous weapon by incorporating home-grown innovations and technologies.  The Iranians need radar, jets, bombers, cargo planes, tanks, armored personnel carriers, computerized targeting equipment, missiles, and artillery, and their navy needs submarines and frigates.  Luckily, the economic sanctions will make it difficult for Iran to go on a shopping spree, now that the weapons-sanctions have been lifted.  Wait....ALL sanctions are being lifted, aren't they?  That means billions of dollars for Iran to buy what it wants.  And once the Saudis and the U.A.E. realize that Iran is not only closer to a nuclear weapon, but that they are modernizing their Armed Forces as well, we will see a nice little arms race develop in the Persian Gulf.  Its not Rocket Science, folks.

For all practical purposes, our last major complaint has already been covered.  We believe that the Iranians should have been obliged to disavow the exportation of terror and the support of terrorist groups.  It may have been just show, but at least we could make them look a bit foolish on an international stage.  In reality, Iran should have been required to limit its aid to groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis to strictly humanitarian goods.  In the end, nothing was asked of Iran.  They were not asked to disavow terror, and they were not asked to dismantle certain facilities in Iran whose sole function is the processing of weapons-grade nuclear material.  They were asked to halt all research into nuclear weapons-related projects, and to permit regular inspections.  The Iranians refused to agree to the inspections, until Secretary of State John Kerry took a knife and severed the last set of balls that existed in this treaty, which was the option for unannounced inspections.  What did Kerry agree to instead?  The inspectors must request the opportunity to inspect each respective site, and that request must be made three weeks in advance of the actual inspection.  To add to the absurdity, the Iranians reserved the right to DENY the request.  In truth, what would we do?  If the Iranians said, "we don't give you permission to inspect that particular site", would we automatically re-apply the sanctions?  Would be take back the money that would have poured into Iran by then?  And what about all the new upgraded military hardware....do you think they will return it, no questions asked?

Previously, we were convinced that the 2010 New Start Treaty was the worst treaty ever negotiated by a U.S. Secretary of State.  John Kerry has proved us wrong, and in the same administration, no less. 

Spying in the 21st Century; counter-terrorism, diplomacy, and economic espionage.

Our world has changed dramatically in the last five decades.  We have enjoyed a renaissance in technology, with the internet changing lives and medical research making discoveries to help people will illnesses and injuries live a more productive, happy life.  Unfortunately the world has also become a much more dangerous place.  Terrorism made its original rude introduction in the early 1960's, and then tapered off a bit, before that eventful day in September of 2001.  Since then, the word, "terrorism" seems to be included in every newscast, and part of almost every travel advisory.  When terrorists were almost exclusively focused on Israel, the battle lines were simple to demarcate.  Today, we live in a world that is slowly being transformed by the actions of Islamic Extremists.  The Obama Administration is determined to not label the bad guys as Muslim Extremists, for fear of appearing "Islam phobic", an unfortunate complication in the efforts to combat groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda.  At the moment, the United States is not technically at war, although our Air Force is heavily involved in the allied air coalition against ISIS in Syria and Iraq.  Another danger we face in the world today is the rebirth of nationalist and expansionist Russia.  Although we support Ukraine diplomatically and have spearheaded the sanctions regime against Russia, our military has not been directly involved in that conflict.  So are we at peace?

The answer is no, and we haven't been for sometime.  You see, even when the soldiers are stateside and the diplomats are making nice with each other, another conflict is being waged in the shadows.  All nations are involved in espionage in one form or another, and the more industrialized, populous states are constantly looking for new ways to improve the art.  The United States is primarily interested in intelligence for national security purposes, which makes terrorism a priority target for the CIA, NSA, and the intelligence gathering apparati of the Departments of Defense and Justice.  Next on the list is probably China, who has created a tremendously advanced and complicated network of spying, utilizing scholars, businessmen, and researchers to both collect on and occasionally subvert the United States in numerous ways.  Russia is also a high-priority collecting target, especially since the arrival of Vladimir Putin and a return to cold-war type aggressive activities.  The U.S. government remains highly interested in information regarding narcotics and counter-intelligence.  A priority target that does not get its deserved share of attention is economics.  The major economies of the world, even the ones who appear to be very closely aligned, are all in the business of collecting confidential information regarding economics and international business. In fact, it makes complete sense.  The health of our nation's economy has to be included in national security concerns, and the Chinese in particular seem to be determined to outmaneuver everyone in this area.

Why are the Chinese so successful at espionage?  The truth is, they haven't always been good at spying.  But once China and the United States started regular bilateral relations, and Chinese university students and researchers were invited to the U.S. to study and do research, the Chinese saw an opportunity to exploit our openness to gather confidential and at times top secret information.  The larger, more prestigious U.S. colleges seem to compete for visiting Chinese scholars.  Unfortunately, many of these universities have received contracts from the Department of Defense to work on highly classified programs.  On more than one occasion, Chinese students have been discovered in possession of internet connections that are active only between the Chinese mainland and the student's personal laptop.  Our own experts have been unable to break into the conversation between the student and Beijing for a number of reasons, including the complexity/security firewalls of the program being used, and the opposition of the respective university's administration from what they perceive as being "action which will discourage future Chinese scholars from wanted to study here."  Can you imagine a student having access to a lab computer, downloading classified information onto a disk, then returning to their  dorm room to send the information to China, without us ever knowing exactly what was being transmitted?

Back to economic espionage.  Its not just a war between China and the United States; the European nations are also interested in getting a "heads-up" on the intentions of our international companies and investors.  For example, the European conglomerate "Airbus", which manufactures airliners with parts from a number of different EU countries, is in regular, fierce completion with Boeing for new airliner orders.  The United States has economic rivalries in the Defense Industry as well.  Germany, France, the UK, Russia, Italy and Spain all manufacture and export military hardware of one sort or another.  Even South Africa goes head to head with the U.S., when it comes to anti-riot vehicles and helicopters.  To have confidential information regarding a foreign competitor's progress on a competitive product can be invaluable, and nations have started training Intelligence Officers to be focused on the business community for the duration of their career.  Many times these Intelligence Officers will utilize Businessman cover in order to gain access to confidential information.  The United States and France wrote the book on this type of espionage, and they continue to this day to practice it more effectively than anyone else.

Espionage has evolved quite a bit in the last few years, let alone last five decades.  So much intelligence collection has been directed towards force protection, other typical areas of interest have suffered.  But the major powers still manage to cover all their bases and go after the terrorist target together.  The joint intel ops that are becoming more and more commonplace just might be the precursor to something much more meaningful: an Intelligence Service that represents more than just one nation.  I assume that the EU has already broken ground in that regard.

True to form, Obama bargains away our National Security in a vain search for a legacy.

Links: A.  CNN: Landmark treaty reached with Iran.
           B.  Fox News: Iran deal worse than expected.
           C.  Basics of 2010 New Start Treaty with Russia.

Earlier today, during a discussion regarding the Nuclear Treaty the Obama Administration and our European allies have crafted, I expressed my opposition.  Almost immediately, I was accused of being so opposed to the current Administration that my opinions had become very "predictable".  My reply to the young lady was to describe myself as "consistent", especially when discussing governments that openly export terrorism and are responsible for the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of U.S. soldiers.  As for my opposition to the Obama Administration, I can only speak from my personal life experience and my conscience.  I voted against Obama on both occasions, along with almost fifty percent of the rest of the country.  I don't feel isolated in my opposition to his policies, nor do I consider myself a radical.  Most importantly, I'm always prepared to back up my perspective with facts.

I have been patiently waiting for the 2016 Presidential Debates so I can hear Hillary Clinton's defense of the 2010 New Start Treaty negotiated and signed with Russia.  This treaty reduces our nuclear arsenal by one-third, while China and Russia are modernizing theirs.  I addition, the Obama Administration has delayed funding for ground-based interceptor (GBI) missile and radar sites that we promised to install in the Czech Republic and Poland.  This delay was the result of loud complaints from Russia regarding this proposed defensive capability.  Unbelievably, the Obama Administration has gone further and hinted at a willingness to unilaterally deactivate one-third of our nuclear arsenal, as behind-the-scenes discussions take place regarding the next round of U.S.-Russian arms talks.  All of this is taking place while Russia slowly swallows up big chunks of Ukraine, and laughs off our repeated attempts to "sanction" them into playing nicely.

The treaty that was hammered out yesterday by John Kerry, his European counterparts, and the Iranian delegation, is even worse than New Start.  A Republican Administration, backed by a Republican Congress, and take effective steps to roll-back the New Start Treaty or rewrite it altogether.  This treaty with Iran establishes so many precedents that will be impossible to reverse.  What are my problems with the treaty?  Lets start with the existing diplomatic environment.  Everyone in the room, including the cleaning man and the lady who refilled everyone's glasses, knew that Kerry was not allowed to leave empty-handed.  He had orders to make every concession necessary in order to secure the Obama Legacy.  Where is the proof to support this allegation?  Just look at the treaty: the Iranians got everything they wanted, and in return we received a few promises that re impossible to verify.  All of DC knew Kerry wasn't allowed to come home without a treaty, and I'm sure Tehran (and Qom) were just as clued-in.  That explains the continued delay after delay.  Sadly, in the end it was only the Iranian complaints that were addressed, as the verification process became so watered down as to make the Saddam Hussein inspection/verification regimen look respectable.

Early on in the negotiations, the Iranians demanded that the conversation be limited to the subject at hand, the nuclear issue.  This removed any chance that suffering families in the United States might get word regarding relatives that have been languishing in Iranian prisons, with no due process.  These are American citizens, and this is how imperative it was for Kerry to get an agreement.  From my optic, their lives don't matter to this Administration.  As an example of just how much carte blanche the Iranians had to rewrite the ground rules, the issue of conventional arms sales were added to the negotiations.  So the U.S. was not allowed to introduce the subject of American citizens in Iranian jails, but the Iranians were able to introduce the subject of sanctions on arms sales to Iran.  Not surprisingly, this issue was included in the final draft.  Sanctions on arms sales to Iran are to be lifted, as they continue to be the world's number one sponsor of international terrorism (Hezbollah, Houthis, etc.).  The Iranians were not required to renounce support for terror, or to join any existing agreement to not engage in weapons proliferation to places like Yemen, Libya, and Syria.

From my perspective, the worst part of the agreement was the controls put on verification.  If our inspectors want to visit an Iranian nuclear research facility, they have to submit the name of the location at least one month in advance.  Even then, there are clauses that allow the Iranians to delay the inspectors.  Even Saddam Hussein had it worse.  Another negative result: you can be sure that both the U.A.E. and Saudi Arabia will become players in the nuclear arms race.  The royal families of the Persian Gulf are well-aware that they fall just below Israel on Iran's nuclear hit-list.  What a mess.

What happened to the days when we expected people to join the ranks of civility and common courtesy amongst nations before they are rewarded?  Wouldn't it have made sense to establish diplomatic relations first, before agreeing to this giveaway?  Monday, he government of Iran had as its official policy, the destruction of Iran.  As for the public policy, the streets were full on Monday of Iranians chanting "Death to America!"  I do not have the expertise or the space to provide a full review of the absolute crap that this treaty contains.  I respectfully ask everyone to read both B and C, to get an honest appreciation of how little our national security means to this Administration.  Amateur Hour in DC.   
        

Things heating up in Ukraine and Iraq, the Tories sweep elections in the UK, and my book is on sale!

Link: Official Website for Mukhabarat, Baby!


Sometime in the next few days, This blog will return to its usual format.  The world just happens to be a very screwed up place at the moment, and there is no shortage of conflicts and social upheaval to write about.  In fact, I believe that the wars in both Syria and Ukraine are about to expand, with a terrible price to be paid by the innocent civilians caught up in this mess (I overheard someone at a restaurant last week comment that civilians in the Ukraine have themselves to blame for any casualties because "they've had plenty of warning" that it was time to pack up and get out of Dodge; sometimes people wear their ignorance like an accomplishment).  I imagine that the Obama Administration is aware of the worsening conditions on both fronts, as President Obama's legacy is truly in the crosshairs, AS IT SHOULD BE.  Our military/diplomatic strategy in both the Levant and the Ukraine are a shambles.  We have become a reactionary presence in international affairs, as opposed to proactive, which is what is expected from a world power.  I have great difficulty trying to piece together a long-term plan in either engagement.  But you can be sure of one thing: no ground troops.  Mark my word, and remember, you read it here.  We will have boots on the ground, but probably in Yemen before Syria or Iraq.  U.S. ground forces (Marines) will be in combat before this Administration packs up and leaves DC.  It really won't be that difficult of a political decision to make, because we parse words so effectively in DC nowadays.  One can argue that "ground troops" implies regular U.S. Army, therefore, a Marine incursion does not require an admission of change in policy.  One way or another, our involvement in international conflicts will increase over the next eighteen months, because the Pentagon and Congress will demand action.  Which will provide the Administration with another way out of the "no ground troops" pledge.  Just blame Congress....it's always worked in the past.

I spent most of the last evening watching French television air election results from the United Kingdom.  I have something called a "French Bouquet" with my Satellite Dish package that allows me to have five channels of mainland French television.  Normally French television is awful, especially the variety shows (Pardonnez-moi, grand mere, mais certains de ces actes de varieties francaises sont difficiles a regarder.  And I beg your pardon, reader, for the lack of accents; I haven't determined how to change the keyboard just yet).  But French documentaries and news programs are informative and usually well-made.  Besides, not one U.S. news channel (its not like we don't have enough) was providing a live feed of election coverage.  Maybe its because I'm a Satellite customer as opposed to cable, or because I live in the southwest; whatever the case, I was grateful to have French television hier soir.  As for the results, I'm still trying to grasp the full meaning behind the near-complete disintegration of the Liberal Democrats and the internecine slaughter of Labour in Scotland by their best buddies, the Scottish Nationalist Party (who hate the Conservatives even more than Labour does).  The astounding growth of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) was muted by the antiquated electoral process in the UK.  The Liberal Democrats managed 2,415,888 votes, and came away with eight seats in Parliament.  UKIP had 3,881,129 votes, and was fortunate to get the one seat that they currently have.  But that was to be expected.  The real question is whether the UK electorate is moving towards a more Conservative era of government (The Tories and UKIP combined equal 50% of votes cast), or is this a temporary reflex response to recent terrorist events in Europe. With the continued growth of Marine Le Pen and the National Front in France, and Right-of-Center political parties showing increased strength across the board, I interpret this development to be a serious effort on behalf of Europeans to demand a common-sense approach to issues of National Security and Immigration.  The world is a much smaller place than it was in 1914 and 1939; television and satellite bring the battlefields of Iraq, Ukraine and Syria into the living rooms of middle-income families, where parents are struggling to ensure that their children will have the opportunity to live life free of constant fear from terrorism.  Don't expect this move to the Right to end anytime soon.

I have managed to keep one eye on current events as I continue to sail my ship, the S.S. NewAuthor, through the reef-infested waters of book-marketing hell.  When I made the decision to self-publish, I realized that the process would not be simple or free from headaches.  But I assumed that self-publishing was one way to ensure that some giant publishing company would not devour eighty-percent or more of the profits from book sales.  Early on, I was quite fortunate.  I chose to use Booklocker to assist with the conversion process, the printing, and the dissemination of my book to the various booksellers out there.  Booklocker has been fantastic and I can't recommend them highly enough.  But at the end of the day, everyone who wants to sell more than a handful of books has to go through Amazon; and when it comes to devouring profits, Amazon is just as hungry as any publishing company.  But the real difficulty for non-fiction authors who self-publish (I can't speak for fiction writers, who very well may suffer the same fate), is the struggle to become part of the conversation.  Publishing companies have staff publicists who create book tours and speaking engagements for authors under contract.  Self-published folks have to go knocking on doors, and believe me, you have to have a thick skin.  I assumed (big mistake...never assume anything in life) that my personal story, of a career CIA Case Officer who was poisoned while operational, and continued a successful career into Iraq and other garden spots, even while the symptoms of toxic exposure manifested themselves, would be of interest to the mainstream media.  Up to this point, I haven't created much interest.  The truth is, my book is much more than a story of poisoning.  In fact, it was never intended to be a focus on my particular circumstances.  I wanted to write about people, the nameless faces who work in thankless environments to collect valuable intelligence for our country, and who seldom receive more than a pat on the shoulder in appreciation.  These people are normal folks, just like the ones you go bowling with on Friday night, or sit next to at the local High School football game.  It was important to bring a sense of humanity to these hard working people, and I have to say that I believe for the most part that I succeeded.  Sure I detail the poisoning episode in my book, but its just one story among many, and I feel comfortable saying that after reading my book, you will have a much better understanding of the Agency's mission and the difficulties and dangers that officers face every in support of our national security.

 

Where In The Hell is Arabia Felix?

Link: Yemen As An Example?


Missile Fired Near U.S. Embassy In Yemen


("Further more, Yemen is a leading pioneer in Democratic practice; lots of brothers and sisters testified on that".)*


Recently I had an important conversation with my brother Joe regarding the abundance of blogs focusing on National Security, and how my modest effort could be most effective.  Joe pointed out that my blog has already found a niche, because unlike the repetitive, "cut-and-paste" blogs that do a nice job of disseminating news, my blog is both proactive and reactive.  I have no problem dedicating an entire post to a question from a reader (in fact, I welcome them), and I use my experience and intuition to post about people and places that will be part of tomorrow's news cycle.  Don't misunderstand, I appreciate the larger, "neater" blogs that break down current events by country (alphabetically as well!); the Longest War Journal is my favorite and gets a visit from my address everyday.  But as Joe pointed out, what seems to be missing is a bit of the ol' human touch.  My style is not for everyone.  My book is written in this fashion, so be forewarned (excerpts coming within the next few weeks, Insh'Allah).

I love Yemen.  It is one of the few places left on the earth where you can have a glass of tea next to a donkey.  So much about Yemen remains as it was when Europeans first arrived and crowned this mountainous desert "Arabia Felix" (Felix is Latin for happy, blessed, fortunate, which sadly has never really applied to Yemen).  Until 1915 or so, Yemen, or more correctly the towns of Mocha and Sana'a, were part of the Ottoman Empire, and Aden belong to Britain.  After World War One, the Zaydi Mutawakkilite Kingdom of Yemen was established in North Yemen, and the Brits continued to occupy South Yemen and Aden.  In 1962 north Yemen became the Yemen Arab Republic, and in 1967 the south chose a socialist path to independence, as the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen.  It seemed as if the two sides were always at war, but in 1990, a union was created, and the modern state of Yemen was born (as always, I'm forced to leave out tons of amazing history, especially pre-European.  Thank goodness for Wikipedia).

In 2004, the Hawthis, a Zaydi Shia insurgent group, accusing the Yemeni government of discrimination against the Shia, declared war.  The government accused the Hawthis of trying to implement Sharia Law.  Al-Qaeda, which is basically a Sunni-affiliated terrorist group, arrived in 2009 and has at times fought on the side of the government against the Shia Hawthis.  This fact, together with Saudi Arabia's proximity to Yemen, allowed Al-Qaeda to develop a strong presence in Yemen.  Yemeni President Ali Saleh has played both sides of the fence on numerous occasions.  Now that the United States has decided that Yemen deserves some attention (and taxpayer dollars), Saleh has become Uncle Sam's best buddy.  As the links point out, today Yemen is sorting through a mess that is very similar to Syria's.  A Sunni-Shia conflict continues (with Al-Qaeda continuing to sympathize with the Sunni cause), alongside a U.S. military effort to destroy Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).  On different occasions Saleh has fallen from power, only to pop back up again, like a Dervish Jack In The Box.  Presently Saleh and the Yemeni government are working with the United States to destroy AQAP.  Every month or so we get a news story about a successful drone attack on Al-Qaeda encampments.  In fact, the U.S. military effort (with the CIA playing a pivotal part) has had great success hunting down and killing various Al-Qaeda targets.  Because of these successes (and the apparent cooperation of the Saleh government), the Obama Administration considers Yemen to be a success in the war on terror.  As is always the case in this part of the world, the reality can never be covered with just one sentence.

In the last few weeks, the Hawthi Movement has increased its pressure on the Saleh government.  Bit by bit, the capital city is falling under the authority of the Hawthis.  The CIA is aware of events as they occur, and surely is keeping the Administration informed.  But the Administration does not want to let go of its one success story, so we have a President who is, for all practical purposes, burying his head in the sand.  The Hawthis, no friend of Al-Qaeda, have been very careful not to piss off the Americans. Considering the amount of resources that the U.S. military and intelligence have tied up in Yemen, it would be in our best interest to avoid pissing off the Hawthis (I'm sure Sana'a is flooded with Iranian intelligence operatives).  If the Saleh government falls, lets hope that the Obama Administration can diplomatically shift our support from the Sunni government to the Shia Hawthis, and continue our operations against Al-Qaeda.  All indications are that the Hawthis would like nothing more than to have the Al-Qaeda presence removed from Yemen (the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" cliché is getting worked to death, for Heaven's sake).  What we have here is an opportunity.  If the Obama Administration can safely navigate the waters of this internal Yemeni conflict (in truth its a civil war), and end up on the other side, still droning the hell out of Al-Qaeda, it will be an indication that just maybe, the same result can be expected in Syria.  Its almost like an opportunity for the Foggy Bottom Diplomats to practice once, before the big game.

*Ali A. Saleh, President of Yemen