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. 

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

Burj Khalifa Tower, Dubai

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

Fort Al-Jalali, Muscat, Oman

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.

Just what is Iran's strategy in Syria and Iraq?

Link: What is the Iranian Strategy?

The article which I have linked is so concise, well-written and full of relevant details, that I had no need to added a second link.  You might be assuming that it was written by me, but in this instance, I can't take the credit.  With regard to the ISIS/ISIL conflict playing out in Syria and Iraq, Iran is a major player.  The Iranians support Bashir al-Assad in Damascus, and currently appear to be calling the shots in Baghdad, Yemen, and Lebanon (Iran is also close with Oman's Sultan Qaboos).  The recent military gains near the oil refinery in Baiji have been attributed to support provided to the Iraqi Army by Shia militias directed by Teheran.  While Turkey purposely steps on everyone's toes, the United States fumbles around, searching for a coherent strategy, and ISIL spends every waking moment looking for a woman to rape or a head to chop off, the Iranians have stealthily strengthened their position in every theater.  Don't get me wrong, I'm still very pessimistic regarding the future of Baghdad, but the Iranians are beginning to apply a few more resources to the struggle, which traditionally signals a new, more aggressive policy on the part of Teheran.  Actually, the Iranians almost seem to be in the catbird seat.  ISIL has been stopped, temporarily, from its efforts to control the northern Iraqi oil fields, and the Iranians have yet to deploy one regular army brigade (although the Badr Corps and Kataib Hezbollah are bound to have Iranian military advisors on hand).  Assad, Teheran's man in Syria, has been given a new lease on life due to the allied air campaign against ISIL, al-Nusra Front, Khorasan and the Partridge Family (excuse the sarcasm, I'm still full of myself after the geniuses in the Pentagon discovered that the groups were part of the same network, which I've been declaring for two months).  In fact, by the time the Free Syrian Army has been trained to adequately fight defensively, the regular Syrian Army will be reconstituted to the point of being the strongest military element in Syria.  And once Assad is back on top, I doubt seriously that Putin and Teheran will allow his removal without a legitimate fight.

Where do the Kurds fit into all this?

I worry about the Kurds.  The fortunes of the Kurdish people can change in the blink of an eye.  They fight like madmen, are courageous to a fault, have never really betrayed anyone, and only want to be left alone in their own little piece of nationhood.  However, since that nationhood dream includes access to oil, it is unlikely to become a reality.  This conflict has Syrian Kurds fighting in Kobani, Iraqi Kurds fighting around Mosul and Erbil, and the never-ending shooting contest with the Turkish Army.  I see an opportunity for the Iranians to add Suleymaniyah, Kurdistan to their list of friends:  If the Iranians were to intervene militarily against ISIL in defense of the Kurds and the Yazidi, can you imagine the public relations jackpot Iran will enjoy?  What a development: Iranian ground forces move in to mop up ISIL, when the Americans couldn't be bothered (and we all know that this is the American's mess to begin with).  The Iranian Army fighting alongside the Iraqi Army, removing the ISIL butchers, should push aside any distaste from the influential Sunni Shaykhs and politicians.  It would solidify the pro-Iranian political forces in Baghdad, and stabilize its own northeastern border with Kurdistan.  Assad finishes off ISIL in Syria, and the Iranians become the power broker in the region.  True, a lot would have to fall into place for this scenario to come to pass.  The Kurds and Iranians would have to get past years of distrust to work that closely together.  And the Sunni community in central Iraq would be the most difficult audience of all.  But when I examine the current situation, I can see no one as well-placed as the Iranians.  The Turks had an opportunity to become that same power broker, but Erdogan can't keep his personal prejudices from impacting his decisions.  The Turks should have co-opted the Kurds, gained access to the Kurdish oil fields, and ended centuries of conflict.  Turkey should have done the United States one better and rolled its tanks and F-16s into Syria, blasting both ISIL and Syrian regular forces into smithereens.  Erdogan could have appealed to the sense of destiny that sits in the heart of every Turk.  At the beginning of this conflict was the time for Turkey to reclaim its natural position as savior and leader of the region, and the first step would have been to crush the band of butchers who call themselves ISIL, and then remove the band of butchers that call themselves the Ba'ath Party in Damascus.  And what would have been the worst-case reaction from the United States and Europe?  That they might have gotten so angry that they enacted a sanctions regime to prohibit Turkish leaders from traveling to Miami Beach in the winter?  At the same time, the Iranians would have been too focused on their all-consuming obsession to build nuclear weapons, and Putin was otherwise too engaged in Ukraine to have made a big stink.  Ok, that last point is probably not true: Putin will not let Assad go without a serious fight, because of Putin's desire for a Mediterranean Port for his navy.

So today's post began as an examination of Iran's options in Syria and Iraq, and ended with a review of what Turkey had to gain by being more aggressive and less-impulsive.  But Turkey's opportunity has now passed, especially in light of recent anti-American, anti-European, events in Turkey.  Erdogan is probably happy right now just to sit back and regroup.  This is of course after he has the pleasure of visiting for a few days with Egg-Head of the millennium, Joe Biden.  But Iran is still in the moment, and if the leaders in Teheran showed a bit of innovation and strategic urgency, they could turn this conflict into an Iranian diplomatic coming-out party.

Oman, UAE, and Saudi Arabia...Gulf Royalty Deluxe

(As was the case yesterday, there will be no link(s) for today's post. Google is replete with information on all three nations.)

Oman is my absolute favorite Gulf monarchy.  I used to have a hot love affair going with the UAE until I started working as an intelligence officer and took a peek behind the curtain.  The current ruler of Oman, Sultan Qaboos, replaced his father in a familial coup in 1970.  Until that time, the history of Oman read like something straight out of One Thousand and One Nights (Arabian Nights).  During the mid-20th century Oman was a feudal territory under the protection of Great Britain.  The territory we now know as Oman was ruled by both the Imam of the Imamate of Oman (Ghalib al-Hinai) and the Sultan of Muscat (Said bin Taimur), the father of today's ruler Sultan Qaboos.  When oil concessions became a hot issue, the Sultan tried to squeeze out the Imam.  The war lasted for some time, as the Imam and his supporters managed to disappear into the inaccessible Jebel Ackdar.  With the help of a few companies of African soldiers and two used British armored cars, the Sultan was able to chase Imam al-Hinai into exile in Saudi Arabia.  After deposing his father, Sultan Qaboos took firm measures to make Oman's wealth work for the Omani people.  The nation was modernized, the economy was expanded, and resources were dedicated to Health and Education.  I chose to provide a bit more historic background than usual because I don't really have anything dastardly to say about Qaboos or Oman.  The Sultan has kept his country basically devoid of the type of Islamic fundamentalism that has invaded the aristocracy in Qatar and Saudi Arabia.  Oman is a beautiful, safe country to visit, and a model for any Gulf nation serious about rejecting Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.  If you want to meet all those peaceful Muslims President Obama keeps gurgling about, book a flight to Muscat.

The United Arab Emirates are a true Federation of seven separate Arab monarchies (Emirates).  They are, in no particular order, Ras al-Khaimah, Umm al-Quwain, Ajman, Sharjah, Fujairah, Abu Dhabi and Dubai.  Ostensibly all seven emirates are supposed to be equal.  At is birth (1971), it was decided that the UAE would be governed by the Federal Supreme Council, which consisted of the ruling emir of each respective emirate.  One of the emirs is selected as President.  In reality, the UAE and its politics are dominated by Abu Dhabi.  The first President of the UAE was Sheikh Zayed of Abu Dhabi, and the current President is his son Khalifa bin Zayed al Nahyan.  The Emirates are incredibly wealthy and are fond of skyscrapers and modern shopping centers.  The Emirates have become a prime tourist destination, particularly for the Brits.  A great deal of money is spent on research, especially as it relates to desalinization and creating agriculturally productive land from desert.  The Emiratis have accomplished a great deal in a very short time.  Now for the half-empty part of the glass.  The UAE has a very effective intelligence service, which is aggressively active both internally and externally.  This service has very close relations with a number of western intelligence agencies, and likes to give the impression that it is anti-Islamic extremist.  In reality, the UAE is just short of being a police state.  Foreigners are watched closely, and natives are watched even more closely.  Practices unbecoming a good Muslim are not allowed.  No kissing in public, and Gays, please stay in Key West.  Prostitution is illegal but widely available, usually serviced by women from the more destitute Russian Republics ("he promised me a job as a secretary"....you get the picture).  The United States is heavily invested in its relationship with the UAE, who spend a great deal of money every year on U.S. manufactured F16s, tanks, and other various military equipment.  On occasion the intelligence community will hear a rumor that maybe one or more of the royal families is secretly providing support to terrorist organizations.  But no one wants to believe this kind of bad news.  If any civil service and intelligence agency could keep that kind of secret, it would be the Emiratis.  Although he is only Prime Minister of the UAE as opposed to President, keep your eye on Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum of Dubai; he is a very interesting multi-billionaire.  He loves the horses and keeps stables in Australia.  He is quite the charmer and very well educated (I would have guessed Eton and Oxford but I would have been wrong).  Something about this guy rubs me the wrong way.  I love all the good things that the Emiratis contribute to the world, but I'm just not ready to say I trust their leadership, at least not when it comes to possible confidential relationships with fundamentalist groups.

House of Saud: More than likely I will be writing a post that is totally dedicated to the Saudis before the year is over.  The House of Saud was the victor in the early 20th century battle for the Arabian peninsula (The vanquished Hashemites had to settle for Trans-Jordan and Iraq).  The Saudi monarchy has always been fiercely and unapologetically conservative and has cultivated a mutually beneficial relationship with both the United States and the United Kingdom.  Everyone out of grade school is aware that the Saudis sit on a butt load of oil, and have a very small population on whom to spend its oil revenues.  History has given the Saud family reason to be concerned about security.  During the reign of Saddam Hussein in neighboring Iraq, Saudi Arabia had to consider the real possibility of an Iraqi invasion.  When it comes to military supplies, the Saudis are a mirror of their Emirati cousins, with Abrams tanks and F16s filling out the Saudi military equipment ledger.  The Saud family has been masters of cultivating a close relationship with the United States (a true example of civil liberties) while enforcing draconian laws that keep women from driving cars.  The Wahhabi movement is often used to scare up enemies of Saudi Arabia, but few people ever take the time to learn what the term "Wahhabi" means.  It is a conservative, Sunni doctrine which is no more invasive than a dozen other Muslim movements.  The real problem with Saudi Arabia as I see it, is the size of the royal family.  King Abdullah (and Faisal before him) do not want war a religious war with the west.  But as the family grows larger and wealth proliferates, it has become impossible to keep track of everybody and every penny.  And we aren't only taking about the Sauds.  Other families closely related to the House of Saud (bin-Ladens) also exercise great wealth.  Can Abdullah control extremist sympathies within his own family?  Can he affect the flow of money out of the Kingdom?  This isn't to say that Abdullah himself does not harbor dislikes in the Arab world.  If a particular terrorist group were working against a perceived enemy of the Kingdom, no doubt Abdullah would send them a few bucks.  All in all, I do not see Saudi Arabia as being a particular supporter of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.  The Saudis are very fond of giving generously to various Islamic Aid and Educational Organizations.  But who knows what might be happening under the guise of succor, which may be too deeply embedded to be seen from the top of the Saudi throne?

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.

Obama's speech on the crisis in Ukraine and the threat posed by ISIS/ISIL

Link: Obama's Sept. 3, 2014 speech on Ukraine and ISIS/ISIL

(In the Spring of 2010 I had a conversation with my dear friend Lindsay Moran regarding my impending retirement and ongoing medical challenges.  Lindsay suggested that as a form of therapy I should write a book.  She correctly surmised that it would be both cathartic and possibly of interest to other folks.  Lindsay is an author herself and had tremendous success with her 2002 publication Blowing My Cover.  After I realized that the book I was writing was evolving into something more than therapy, we discussed the difficulties in getting books published.  Not to mention, a review of the genre shows no lack of "CIA memoirs" available on Amazon.  We decided that because of the original focus, my book would be very different from the numerous espionage-related non-fiction books that can be found at Barnes & Noble.  For me personally it was important that my book be as non-political as possible.  I wrote about people, and it takes quite a few personalities to fill up a room full of Case Officers, Analysts and Linguists.  I saw no point in excluding anyone just because I didn't agree with their politics.  I have tried to mirror my blog with the same effort in mind.  That being said, I have some critical observations to make about President Obama's speech today.  It's the nature of the business he is in and I will not tip-toe around in an attempt to not offend someone.  I would approach any speech by President Bush with the same perspective.)

President Obama began his first term with a whirlwind visit to Europe, Mexico and the Near East.  In particular, I recall visits to Cairo, Egypt and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.  It was the speech he gave in Cairo that appealed to many Americans who had hopes of building a

2009 Speech at Cairo Univesity

better relationship with the Islamic world.  My recollection of the speech is that it was an apology, which should not have been surprising given the disagreement within the United States and in the International Community regarding the 2003 invasion of Iraq.  Many Americans, I'm sure President Obama included, believed that U.S. diplomacy must move in a different direction in order to build peaceful, long-lasting relationships with the Arab world.  I would have been thrilled to see this Administration succeed in their efforts.  It would be nice if 6 years of Obama foreign policy would have resulted in no more beheadings of innocent Americans or conflict in Iraq.  But this has not been the case.  The Obama Administration has failed in its efforts to build a successful policy in the Near East (I say Near East vs. Middle East).  Libya is a political quagmire with the future leaders of that country almost guaranteed to be Islamic fundamentalists, Egypt teeters on the edge of a civil war, Jordan is overrun with terrorist groups, Syria is a complete battleground between repressive fascist Bashir al-Assad and Islamic terrorists, Iraq has split into spheres of Kurdish, Sunni, Shia, and ISIS/ISIL control, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict hasn't been this bloody since the Intifada. 

Speech at Nordea Concert Hall in
Tallin, Estonia Sept. 3, 2014

During the speech he gave on September 3, President Obama stated that the United States must "organize" the Arab nations in an effort to combat terrorism, defeat ISIS/ISIL, and bring peace to the region.  He continues to avoid any implication that the United States might be obliged to intervene military (excluding the bombing raids in Iraq).  According to Obama, peace can be achieved in Ukraine, Syria, Libya, and Gaza, through diplomacy and through the use of sanctions.  You cannot convince me that he sincerely still believes this argument.  In both Ukraine and in the various Near East hot spots, none of the players involved seem predisposed to a peaceful resolution.  How do you force the kids fighting on the playground to put down their sticks, especially when your own stick is not nearly as big as it used to be?  In a previous blog, I made the argument that the sanctions regime enacted by the United States and the European Union against Russia, was going to hurt two groups that Vladimir Putin appeared to have under his complete control: the super-rich and the poor.  I'm sure the sanctions have impacted all members of Russian society to some extent, but I don't see even a hint of demonstrations in Red Square, how about you? (Except for the demonstrations in support of Putin's policy.)  Providing direct military assistance to the Ukrainian Armed Forces is long overdue.  I'm not sure that we have decided to take that step.  Time will tell.  I'm still convinced that the Russian Army is not prepared for a full invasion of Ukraine, or that Putin wants to re-attach the entire country to Mother Russia.  I believe Putin is hoping for the pieces to fall together that will allow him to annex Crimea and he is willing to give up eastern Ukraine in the bargain.  This development has given the Poles (and Byelorus, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) the opportunity to review military planning and policy, which in this case is a good thing.

Back to the organizing of Arab states to fight Islamic-based terrorism:  Luckily I'm not afraid to say "ISLAMIC-BASED TERRORISM" or "ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM".  The misuse and misinterpretation of the Quran is at the heart of the problem.  It's true that the huge majority of Muslims in the world just want to live their lives in peace and at peace with their neighbors.  But the bad guys have become an international crisis not because they willed it, but because they have found plenty of wealthy donors who secretly agree with their misuse and misinterpretation of the Quran.  The first thing these groups need are sponsors.  Secondly they need recruits.  You can't have the second without the first because someone has to pay the bills.  President Obama will not be successful in his effort to organize Arab states against terrorism because it is elements within these same Arab states that are supporting terrorism.  In Saudi Arabia, the Wahabi movement has long been a source of conservative and anti-western dogma.  The size of the royal family and its wealthy acolytes makes it impossible to accurately follow the money that flows out of the Kingdom.  The same can be said for Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait.  I'm giving Oman and Jordan's King Abdallah, who seems to be a truly decent man, the benefit of the doubt.  The United Arab Emirates (UAE) are a true mystery.  At one time the UAE were known as the Trucial States and did most of their diplomacy through Great Britain.  Once oil became a huge commodity and the Brits granted independence, the seven separate emirates (Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Um al-Quwain, Fujairah, Ajman, Sharjah, and Ras al-Khaimah) smartly banded together and formed the UAE.  Europeans see the UAE as a great holiday destination and the place to see the latest monumental skyscraper.  The Emiratis have some amazing accomplishments to their credit.  They have turned desert into shiny cities and have pioneered desalinization research.  Wealthy Emiratis love horse (and camel) racing and enjoy the ancient sport of falconry. Each of the seven families controls tremendous wealth, created by the oil they sit upon.  Again, we have no real idea whether any of that money finds its way into the hands of terrorists.  The point is, while agreeing to tow the line diplomatically, the Arab states have no obligation to open their books to us or anyone else, and it is tremendously difficult determining if any particular player is funding terrorist activities.  Some evidence does exist that money from the various royal families of the Gulf region has found its way to Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and the like.  In fact, various humanitarian organizations active throughout the Near East have been discovered laundering money on behalf of terrorist groups, and that money certainly must originate somewhere.

President Obama finds himself in a difficult position.  For continuity's sake, he must stress the need for diplomatic solutions to the various problems in Ukraine and the Near East.  But the reality is, the United States does not have the diplomatic influence to impact any of the current crises.  Once it was obvious to ISIS/ISIL that the United States military would be out of Iraq by such and such date, they began to re-establish themselves in the rural communities and stepped up attacks on Iraqi government targets.  Considering the cost paid for what was achieved in Iraq (establishment of an electoral process, rebuilt refining capacity, new schools, rebuilt transportation infrastructure, rebuilt economy, etc.), I don't think it would have been too much to ask for the United States to have an Army base and an Air Force base in Iraq.  It would have made a huge difference to the folks around Mosul, Arbil, and Tikrit, I can assure you.  I do understand that the Administration is pressed to continue searching for diplomatic solutions to the conflicts we are discussing, but I for one can't help but focus on the real opportunities we have (which are not necessarily diplomatic in nature).  We need to give the Ukrainian Armed Forces full military support (short of feet on the ground).  The current exercises in Ukraine involving elements of the U.S. Army is a very smart move.  As for ISIS/ISIL, we must combat the recruitment efforts in the United States and Europe, and we must disrupt their supply/resources network, which includes tracking and cutting off financial support.  But sooner or later, I believe the U.S. military will have to engage ISIS/ISIL.  And when that day comes, ISIS/ISIL will pay the bill in full.