Links: A. Giuliani's Comments About President Obama
B. Opposition to Giuliani
Well, we should've seen this one coming. From 2000 until 2008, politics in the United States suffered through an infusion of hatred and personal vitriol that was bound to set a precedent.
Its the same point I make to defender's of President Obama's use of Executive Authority: if you let a poisonous snake loose in a small room with you and your enemy, chances are, if you handled the release properly, that your opponent is going to get bit. But after he's finished with your enemy, then that same snake is coming for you. The accusations hurled at president Bush before, during, and after Operation Enduring Freedom, sit clearly in my memory. What is the worst accusation to toss at someone? I think "babykiller, murderer" etc. rise to the top of the list, but some of the more traditional names, like "misongynist, homophobe, and racist" still pack a punch. President George W. Bush was called these names on a regular basis, not to mention "despot, and election thief". The comments that bothered me the most were the accusations of "murderer". If President Bush was a murderer, then by proxy, so were our troops in the field. Some of the comments made, in particular by members of the Black Congressional Caucus, crippled the tone of civility in Washington DC. Four days ago, Rudy Giuliani, in a speech at a private fund-raiser, opined that President Barrack Obama did not love the United States. When he was approached later and asked about his comments, he didn't hide or back away; he didn't use semantic games about the true meaning of certain words. He frankly and honestly repeated his original opinion. And since then, he has been castigated in a worthy example of typical liberal hypocrisy.
When Howard Dean, or Bill Maher, or Debbie Schultz-Wasserman decide to spew personal insults, we must have thicker skin, and appreciate their candor. Rudy Giuliani didn't insult anyone, unless you believe that saying someone doesn't love their country is an insult. And that, my friends, is a matter of opinion. I know Americans who are proud of their lack of love for the United States and its history and traditions. During the Iraq War, we watched a decent-sized group of protesters set up shop outside of President Bush's Ranch, and chant all day long about the evilness of "imperialist Amerika". And what about that nasty, filthy, lazy, stoned mobbed of freaks that called themselves the "Occupy Wall Street" movement; did you listen to their diatribe? The United States was barely, just barely less offensive than Nazi Germany on their list of bad guys. Lets not forget that many on the Left, including some members of Congress who are feigning "shock", supported this gathering of human filth. Since we do live in a free society, and our young men and women continue to this very moment to put their lives at risk to defend our freedom to have differing opinions, its legal to hate the United States. And that particular protection of the law extends to the protesters in New York City. It extends to me, and to the office of the President as well.
Personally, I would not have made such a comment at an event with so much media coverage. I understand that he's entitled to express his opinion, but why piss off people in that particular time? I don't believe that the venue was an ideal place for someone of Giuliani's stature to make that controversial of a comment. But I'm probably about to make the same mistake. I agree with Giuliani; I don't believe that President Barrack Obama loves the United States of America, at least not the USA of which I am familiar. I don't make that comment to piss off people, and I'm happy to explain myself (another problem of Giuliani's: for a former successful Prosecutor, his seems to have completely lost the ability to make a convincing argument). I believe that when President Obama creates a mental image of the United States, it is dominated by visions of dead American-Indians and Reservations, unlimited and ecologically crippling industrial complexes, Japanese-Americans in camps during World War II, Africans being chained and inhumanely transported to North America to be slave labor, marches of the Civil Rights Era, and efforts by Segregationists to deny racial equality. He would be correct to include these images, as long as he was also including the advances and discoveries in transportation and farming, the abolition of slavery, the Equal Rights Amendment, the sacrifices of U.S. soldiers in two costly World Wars, the inventions of the automobile, airplane, television, radio and incubator, Satellite technology, the creation of president Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations and the sponsorship of the United Nations, landing on the Moon, microchip research, the rebuilding of Europe and Asia following the World Wars, and the creation of a Constitution that still to this day, is the most important representative legislation that the world has yet seen. No doubt, I've excluded many unpleasant and shameful events that were caused or defended by one U.S. government or another (the USS Maine comes to mind, as do the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments), just as I've skipped over the greater part of contributions to society that were delivered by the United States and U.S. citizens. But its not my job to record either list; there are plenty of academics who never tire of just such work.
I believe that President Obama strongly supports monumental changes to our government, our social structure, and our foreign affairs. In my opinion, President Obama sees the current status quo, the existing government structure, organizations, agencies, and our military history of intervention in support of Democracy, to be the reason why equality and racism still exist in the United States. He believes that a wholesale change is needed, not just in attitude but in the way we go about our business. Obama sees the United States as an international bully, determined to stamp our brand of political and social advancement onto the Third World. This was the argument of the hippy, anti-war, counter-culture movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and also happens to be the environment in which Obama was raised. His parents were both quite intelligent and dedicated; they were also proud Socialists. As a teenager, when Obama wasn't getting stoned, he was exposed to a regular conveyor belt of academic, anti-American elitist types, including Assata Shakur and Bill Ayers. No doubt he became familiar with his father's political manifesto, which reads like a guide to violent revolution like nobody's business. I am mystified as to how this country twice elected to the Presidency someone with so many unanswered questions and affiliations. To be frank, we also voted for someone whose only job experience was as a "community organizer", a lecturer, and a politicians. The nation was suffering from serious Bush-fatigue. Even the most hardened Red Stater was tired of looking at Bush's shit-eating grin.
I use the words "shocked", and "mystified", and "surprised", but at the end of the day, it takes something special to really leave me scratching my head. Reverend Jeremiah Wright was more than special. Private citizen Obama was a member of Reverend Wright's Chicago congregation. Illinois State Senator Obama was a member of Wright's congregation, as was Barrack Obama, father of two beautiful little girls, a member of Wright's church. The Obama's had their children baptized by Reverend Wright. We've all heard the sermons, including the "God Damn the United States" comment, which was repeated on a number of occasions. During his tenure as Reverend, Wright regularly politicized the pulpit to a degree seldom seen in a basically secularized nation. Every sermon was connected in some way to the idea that white people continued to enslave and brutalize the African American community. The Police Department is racist, and the local, state and federal governments are all designed to keep the Black man without hope or opportunity. I'm repeating some of the less-profane comments made by Reverend Wright. And all the while, barrack Obama continued to attend service with his wife and two children. I find it hard to believe that anyone would expose their children to such garbage, but they Obamas came back, almost regularly but often enough to be considered members of the congregation. When the story broke in the media, all Obama had to say was that he didn't pay attention when Wright started preaching about race issues, and that either he respectfully disagreed with Wright, or that he didn't notice any of the offensive rhetoric. All I wanted was for Obama to admit that he was present, but that he renounced Wright's inflammatory and racist comments. I waited in vain.
Rudy Giuliani is being labeled a racist in many circles because of his comments. In Europe in particular, one does not speak ill of Barrack Obama. Any criticism is a clear indication of latent racist tendencies. Rudy Giuliani's career is a clear indicator that the man does not differentiate by race. But legitimate criticisms of the Obama Administration usually end up in this corner of the boxing ring; its the usual location for KOs. If a criticism or an unfavorable portrayal of Obama survives the first few attempts by the sycophants and the main stream media to render them inert, then racist card is played. Obama has encouraged this type of labeling, and the result is that race relations in the United States are at their worst point since the 1960s.
In this post, I've dropped the gauntlet on the Obama Administration. I really don't like to inject partisan politics into the blog. No doubt, that is exactly what I have done with this post. I avoid getting political because I've learned that my chance of changing someone's opinions regarding politics are basically zero-to-none. This generation of Americans does not like to admit being wrong; a change in political perspective is exactly that. An admission that you made a mistake, but that now you see things more clearly. In my lifetime, people were more comfortable with accepting a mistake in the voting booth. I remember once watching Reverend Pat Robertson on a news broadcast at McDonald's, waiting for my number to be called, when the stranger standing next to me said, "and to think I voted for that religious bigot. I'm so glad he didn't win (the nomination)". I know a number of folks who admit that their vote for Ross Perot, who never had a legitimate hope of winning, was a mistake. And how many Jimmy Carter voters regret their decision? But in 2015, admitting that you made a bad political decision is considered an indication of ignorance. So people will stick to their choices until the bitter end, looking for any wild, hair-brained conspiracy theory to explain why their candidate was busted "in flagrante delicto" with a transsexual prostitute in the bushes of Central Park. People don't want to admit that maybe Obama was not the best choice (in either instance). Another huge issue is the concern regarding the legacy of the Office of the Presidency. Almost every American, especially yours truly, wanted the first African-American President to be a success. The reality is quite different, unfortunately. Our economy is wheezing in fits and starts, our employment numbers are way past the point of alarm, we've doubled the national debt in six years and have nothing to show for it, who knows what will become of Obamacare, our veterans are treated disgracefully by their own government, and our foreign policy, on a good day, is rudderless. The last six years have not been a success, but it has about as much to do with President Obama's skin color as it does with Rudy Giuliani's shiny bald head: not a damn thing. Barrack Obama is an extremely intelligent, hard-working man who obviously adores his family. I just believe, like Rudy Giuliani, that he doesn't love the United States as it is today.
Showing posts with label Operation Enduring Freedom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Operation Enduring Freedom. Show all posts
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Thursday, October 30, 2014
What Is The Difference Between Sunni And Shia and Why Is It Important In The Struggle With ISIS?
Links: A. Difference Between Shia and Sunni
B. Islamic State Version of Hearts and Minds
I have always been a strong advocate of educating soldiers beyond the skills necessary to kill. I have had the good fortune to meet young men who are new to the service, and many have asked for advice. I have never been a soldier, at least not in uniform, but I have been in enough zones of conflict in my CIA career, and I have had the distinction to have worked with Navy Seals, Special Forces, Airborne Units, and Humint Collection Teams. My father was career army; he served in both Korea and Vietnam, earning three Purple Hearts. My cousin Lonnie is a decorated R.O.T.C. instructor at an inner-city school in Dallas and someone truly worthy of admiration. I am honored when members of the U.S. military
ask me for advice. If you have the opportunity beforehand, learn everything you can about the enemy and the location to which you are being deployed; combat-zones don't normally come with fully stocked libraries. Events in the last twenty years certainly suggest that the United States will be at war with Islamic Extremism for the indefinite future. My suggestions are to learn about Islam; read the Quran if possible. Chances are, sooner or later you will end up in a country full of Muslims. They will respect you if you show that you have made an attempt to learn about their traditions and religion. Also, learn about your environment. If I had a dime for every time I have recommended "Seven Pillars of Wisdom" by T.E. Lawrence, I could buy myself a new camel.
For someone wanting to expand their knowledge of Islam without becoming a full-on scholar, let's start with the important stuff: the difference between Shia and Sunni Muslims. Shia Muslims constitute a majority only in Iran, Iraq, and Bahrain, with a sizable minority in Lebanon. The difference between Sunni and Shia arose from the question of who should inherit the mantle of the Prophet following his death in 632. The group who supported the claim of Abu Bakr, friend of the Prophet and father of the Prophet's wife Aisha, became the Sunni's choice. The opposition believed the authority of the Prophet should belong to the nearest relation. They argued that the Prophet had actually anointed Ali, his son-in-law and cousin, as his successor. They became known as the "Shia", a contraction of "shiaat Ali" (the partisans of Ali). The supporters of Abu Bakr won out, although Ali did rule for a short time as the fourth Caliph, the title given to Muhammed's successors. The split became more or less permanent in 680, when Ali's son Hussein was killed by the ruling Sunni Caliph's troops in the Battle of Karbala. From that point on, the Sunni became the more political of the two groups and believe their leader should be elected from those most capable, while the Shia look to their Imams for guidance and believe the Imam is appointed by the Prophet or God Himself. It is estimated that eighty percent of Muslims are Sunni, and twenty percent are Shia.
The issue of the inheritance of the Prophet's authority has never really faded away. The date of the death of Hussein and his infant son at the hands of Sunnis in the Battle of Karbala is observed every year. Sunnis consider the event to be a very tragic occurrence, while the Shia observe a period of mourning, which includes episodes of self-flagellation by the extremely pious. It is a remarkable scene to behold. Over the centuries, Sunni and Shia have fought side-by-side against Christian Crusaders and other enemies of the faith; but in the end, the split always reappears. In Iraq, the Sunni have traditionally considered the Shia to be ignorant, farmer-types. Central Iraq is home to Karbala, Hillah and Najaf, three cities considered Holy by the Shia. During the first Gulf War, the Shia rose up in rebellion against Saddam Hussein. To this day, U.S. President George Bush is criticized for not coming to the aid of the Shia, who were mercilessly butchered by Saddam (in reality, the Shia expected assistance from the Americans, given the invasion that had just occurred; they didn't consider the possibility that Bush wanted to keep Saddam in place in order to avoid a power vacuum).
The Islamic State of the Levant (ISIS, ISIL, or IS) was originally Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Al-Qaeda in Iraq. This group raised havoc with U.S. forces for some time during Operation Enduring Freedom. Zarqawi operated in mostly Sunni areas of Iraq, taking advantage of sympathy from fellow Sunnis. In an effort to cause problems between Sunni and Shia and therefore destabilize the situation more, Zarqawi began targeting Shia political rallies. He would then bomb the funeral ceremonies for the victims. The Sunni community of Iraq turned their back on Zarqawi and aided the U.S. efforts to destroy his organization. Zarqawi himself was on the receiving end of a five hundred-pound bunker buster bomb, and the remnants of his organization fled to greener pastures in Syria. Once it became apparent that the U.S. military would be leaving Iraq, they returned, only this time sporting a new name and mission. The Islamic State of the Levant is dedicated to the creation of a Caliphate: a Sunni-religious State created from pieces of Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Israel and Lebanon (I think; I haven't seen the latest incarnation). The IS has been in a state of war with Shia Muslims since the days of Zarqawi, which explains why the Shia militias continue to accept hordes of volunteers (so many that the Iraqi Army is having trouble arming them). I predicted that the IS would make Baghdad an important target because I can imagine how incensed its leadership must be to see a Shia-led government in office. Also, Iraq is home to so many sensitive religious sites, it's not possible for the IS to focus exclusively on Syria. One fact is certain: the Shia and the IS despise each other. The United States and its allies should take full advantage of this reality.
B. Islamic State Version of Hearts and Minds
I have always been a strong advocate of educating soldiers beyond the skills necessary to kill. I have had the good fortune to meet young men who are new to the service, and many have asked for advice. I have never been a soldier, at least not in uniform, but I have been in enough zones of conflict in my CIA career, and I have had the distinction to have worked with Navy Seals, Special Forces, Airborne Units, and Humint Collection Teams. My father was career army; he served in both Korea and Vietnam, earning three Purple Hearts. My cousin Lonnie is a decorated R.O.T.C. instructor at an inner-city school in Dallas and someone truly worthy of admiration. I am honored when members of the U.S. military
 |
| T. E. Lawrence |
For someone wanting to expand their knowledge of Islam without becoming a full-on scholar, let's start with the important stuff: the difference between Shia and Sunni Muslims. Shia Muslims constitute a majority only in Iran, Iraq, and Bahrain, with a sizable minority in Lebanon. The difference between Sunni and Shia arose from the question of who should inherit the mantle of the Prophet following his death in 632. The group who supported the claim of Abu Bakr, friend of the Prophet and father of the Prophet's wife Aisha, became the Sunni's choice. The opposition believed the authority of the Prophet should belong to the nearest relation. They argued that the Prophet had actually anointed Ali, his son-in-law and cousin, as his successor. They became known as the "Shia", a contraction of "shiaat Ali" (the partisans of Ali). The supporters of Abu Bakr won out, although Ali did rule for a short time as the fourth Caliph, the title given to Muhammed's successors. The split became more or less permanent in 680, when Ali's son Hussein was killed by the ruling Sunni Caliph's troops in the Battle of Karbala. From that point on, the Sunni became the more political of the two groups and believe their leader should be elected from those most capable, while the Shia look to their Imams for guidance and believe the Imam is appointed by the Prophet or God Himself. It is estimated that eighty percent of Muslims are Sunni, and twenty percent are Shia.
 |
| Shia Muslims re-enact the Battle of Karbala [AP] |
The Islamic State of the Levant (ISIS, ISIL, or IS) was originally Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Al-Qaeda in Iraq. This group raised havoc with U.S. forces for some time during Operation Enduring Freedom. Zarqawi operated in mostly Sunni areas of Iraq, taking advantage of sympathy from fellow Sunnis. In an effort to cause problems between Sunni and Shia and therefore destabilize the situation more, Zarqawi began targeting Shia political rallies. He would then bomb the funeral ceremonies for the victims. The Sunni community of Iraq turned their back on Zarqawi and aided the U.S. efforts to destroy his organization. Zarqawi himself was on the receiving end of a five hundred-pound bunker buster bomb, and the remnants of his organization fled to greener pastures in Syria. Once it became apparent that the U.S. military would be leaving Iraq, they returned, only this time sporting a new name and mission. The Islamic State of the Levant is dedicated to the creation of a Caliphate: a Sunni-religious State created from pieces of Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Israel and Lebanon (I think; I haven't seen the latest incarnation). The IS has been in a state of war with Shia Muslims since the days of Zarqawi, which explains why the Shia militias continue to accept hordes of volunteers (so many that the Iraqi Army is having trouble arming them). I predicted that the IS would make Baghdad an important target because I can imagine how incensed its leadership must be to see a Shia-led government in office. Also, Iraq is home to so many sensitive religious sites, it's not possible for the IS to focus exclusively on Syria. One fact is certain: the Shia and the IS despise each other. The United States and its allies should take full advantage of this reality.
Saturday, October 18, 2014
Why Is Kobani So Important To The Islamic State?
Links: Lots Of Targets For U.S. Air Force
Islamic State Air Force?
Ramadi Under Seige
The spokesmen for the Allied effort to defeat the Islamic State in the Levant (IS) has informed us that the IS is pouring men and resources into the effort to take Kobani. Has anyone asked why? What is so important to the IS, that they would sacrifice so many resources for its possession? True, Kobani is strategically located, in the far north of Syria, on the Turkish border. Would occupying Kobani improve the IS supply network? Is it possible that Kobani has become a must-win situation for the IS from a public relations perspective? You know what they say: no one likes a loser. Maybe the IS believes it must win in order to keep up morale amongst the faithful. It's a very interesting question that I assume the Pentagon has been pondering as well. As for the situation on the ground, it's still David versus Goliath, with a small number of Peshmerga hanging on against the IS onslaught. Still nothing from the Turks. I am pleased with the havoc visited upon the IS by our heroes in the air. I hope we will keep it up, and even make things hotter for the bad guys, if possible. We have an unfair advantage: a handful of air forces against....nothing. But I'll take it, because a similar unfair balance exists on the ground, but in reverse. And the sad truth is that for the Kurds defending Kobani, there is no other hope for relief unless we can magically stand-up a Kurdish army over the weekend and deliver them by airlift. This is because our surrogate army won't be finished cooking for another three or four months (did you set the timer?). The naked truth is that when it comes to a ground battle in this conflict, the United States will not deploy forces and that means the Kurds are left to their own devices on the streets of Kobani. The message from the United States and her allies to the Kurds in Kobani? We will bomb the shit out of the bad guys, and try to keep you supplied, but when it comes to bleeding, you guys are on your own.
Speaking of air forces, the second link has me a bit excited that the IS may try and add some offensive air capability. The link mentioned three Migs (a combination of 21s and 23s, I believe). These birds are probably not much younger than Snoopy's Sopwith Camel doghouse, but I have it on reliable authority that the IS is in possession of more than three workable Migs. A search on Google Maps for "Taqba Dam, Syria", will take you to Al-Taqbah, Syria (don't try diving in with a direct search for "Al-Taqbah, Syria" . . . it got me nowhere). Just south of the lovely desert oasis of Al-Taqbah is a (former) Syrian Air Force Base. Flip your view from map to satillite photo, zoom in, and observe the eight to ten Migs sitting on the tarmac.
Again, my trusty source tells me that those planes were present when the IS captured the Al-Taqbah Air Base. The IS has also captured a few other airbases, so it's no wonder that the Syrian Conflict rumor mill has former Iraqi Air Force pilots training IS operatives to fly Migs. The minute the IS came into possession of jets, they started searching for pilots and trainers. But I don't think we have anything to worry about here directly. What, exactly, will the IS do with ten or fifteen old Migs? I can't imagine that they would attempt combat with a U.S. F16 (or Qatari for that matter) or a French Eurofighter. What concerns me more is that they have the opportunity to create more than a handful of jet pilots. And it doesn't take much to fly a jumbo jet after you've had even limited flight training (the killers on September 11 had little to no real flight experience with a jumbo jet). My real concern is that the Syrian Air Force has provided the IS with the best kind of teaching tools for wannabe pilots . . . real jets.
The last link I've provided gives us our daily update on the situation in Anbar Province, in western Iraq. After reading the article, one might be tempted to adopt a more optimistic perspective about the effort to save Baghdad. According to the Iraqi spokesman, efforts are underway to eliminate any pockets of IS infiltrators in the city of Ramadi. The article quotes the Shia's Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani as calling all the tribes in the area to rally behind the Iraqi Army to defeat "the Daesh (IS)". Well, I have a newsflash for everyone involved: Al-Sistani is preaching to Sunni Shaykhs and Sunni Tribal Leaders. Al-Sistani is a Shia, and the Shia tend to be found a bit further south than the Ramadi-Fallujah line. Does anyone really expect the Sunni Shaykhs to rise up against a Sunni movement (IS), at the behest of a Shia spiritual leader? During Operation Enduring Freedom, when the Sunni-supported insurgency became a serious threat, the United States Army and the CIA went to the Shaykhs, met them face to face, and provided them with a much more positive vision for the future than what Al-Qaeda in Iraq was able to do. Sunni leaders knew that Al-Qaeda had become too violent, and that it had become more of an enemy-to than a representative of the Sunni community. The few Sunni tribes who have currently moved against IS have done so out of self-preservation; no "save-Baghdad and Iraq" about it. Somehow or another, the government in Baghdad (or the Allies) must find a way to deliver this same message now, and not from a Shia cleric who in the past has advocated the slaughter of Sunnis.
Islamic State Air Force?
Ramadi Under Seige
The spokesmen for the Allied effort to defeat the Islamic State in the Levant (IS) has informed us that the IS is pouring men and resources into the effort to take Kobani. Has anyone asked why? What is so important to the IS, that they would sacrifice so many resources for its possession? True, Kobani is strategically located, in the far north of Syria, on the Turkish border. Would occupying Kobani improve the IS supply network? Is it possible that Kobani has become a must-win situation for the IS from a public relations perspective? You know what they say: no one likes a loser. Maybe the IS believes it must win in order to keep up morale amongst the faithful. It's a very interesting question that I assume the Pentagon has been pondering as well. As for the situation on the ground, it's still David versus Goliath, with a small number of Peshmerga hanging on against the IS onslaught. Still nothing from the Turks. I am pleased with the havoc visited upon the IS by our heroes in the air. I hope we will keep it up, and even make things hotter for the bad guys, if possible. We have an unfair advantage: a handful of air forces against....nothing. But I'll take it, because a similar unfair balance exists on the ground, but in reverse. And the sad truth is that for the Kurds defending Kobani, there is no other hope for relief unless we can magically stand-up a Kurdish army over the weekend and deliver them by airlift. This is because our surrogate army won't be finished cooking for another three or four months (did you set the timer?). The naked truth is that when it comes to a ground battle in this conflict, the United States will not deploy forces and that means the Kurds are left to their own devices on the streets of Kobani. The message from the United States and her allies to the Kurds in Kobani? We will bomb the shit out of the bad guys, and try to keep you supplied, but when it comes to bleeding, you guys are on your own.
The last link I've provided gives us our daily update on the situation in Anbar Province, in western Iraq. After reading the article, one might be tempted to adopt a more optimistic perspective about the effort to save Baghdad. According to the Iraqi spokesman, efforts are underway to eliminate any pockets of IS infiltrators in the city of Ramadi. The article quotes the Shia's Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani as calling all the tribes in the area to rally behind the Iraqi Army to defeat "the Daesh (IS)". Well, I have a newsflash for everyone involved: Al-Sistani is preaching to Sunni Shaykhs and Sunni Tribal Leaders. Al-Sistani is a Shia, and the Shia tend to be found a bit further south than the Ramadi-Fallujah line. Does anyone really expect the Sunni Shaykhs to rise up against a Sunni movement (IS), at the behest of a Shia spiritual leader? During Operation Enduring Freedom, when the Sunni-supported insurgency became a serious threat, the United States Army and the CIA went to the Shaykhs, met them face to face, and provided them with a much more positive vision for the future than what Al-Qaeda in Iraq was able to do. Sunni leaders knew that Al-Qaeda had become too violent, and that it had become more of an enemy-to than a representative of the Sunni community. The few Sunni tribes who have currently moved against IS have done so out of self-preservation; no "save-Baghdad and Iraq" about it. Somehow or another, the government in Baghdad (or the Allies) must find a way to deliver this same message now, and not from a Shia cleric who in the past has advocated the slaughter of Sunnis.
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
The Politization of the ISIS Threat: Business as Usual.
Link: Juan Williams says ISIS will Benefit Democrats in Midterms
Former CIA Director Panetta Critical of Iraq Pullout
The first news story that grabbed my attention today focused on threats made by the Islamic State (IS) to French, Australian and American citizens, and it came as no surprise. IS is not pleased with the ongoing air campaign which has disrupted IS attempts to establish itself in oil-rich areas of Kurdistan. It is estimated that IS already earns over one billion dollars a day in oil revenue. By the way, who is purchasing oil from IS? Shouldn't our military resources be focused on shutting down this IS cash cow? Now that kind of valuable intelligence would make an Accessions List sparkle (excuse the Agency insider comment). As for the threats against Yanks, Frenchies, and Aussies, take it at face value. This part of the world is known for drama. Remember the Iraqi Spokesman who, during Operation Enduring Freedom, continued to broadcast about Iraqi battlefield victories, as Abrams tanks were pulling up outside his office? In warfare, bullets are a lot more dangerous than words. The second article that grabbed my attention highlighted comments by Fox News contributor Juan Williams on the IS issue and how it plays into U.S. politics. Williams hypothesized that President Obama's approval ratings would improve because of his declaration of "war" against the IS. Williams added that Obama's improved image would benefit Democratic Senate and House candidates in this year's November midterm elections. I normally disagree with Juan regarding policy, but he is usually on the money with political forecasting. I agree that an increased military effort in support of our national security is a no-lose proposition for President Obama. But it doesn't make me happy.
I am one of those folks who believe that Hurricane Sandy helped President Obama win re-election in 2012. Mitt Romney playing defense for the last month and bizarre instances of voter fraud in key battleground states also played a role, but in the end President Obama won re-election in 2012, and it appears he might be about to do it again, albeit in a different political venue. I really like Juan Williams. I have heard he is a true gentleman and I believe he plays his part of the Fox News "counter argument" in fine fashion. But I am thoroughly disturbed with the glee he seems to express, as he pronounces that, yet again, smoke and mirrors will decide a major U.S. election. I did not vote for Barack Obama, and I am not a supporter of his policies. Oddly enough, considering the subject of this blog, foreign policy is not my "Obama complaint". Simply put, he has taken our grandchildren's credit card out of the White House wallet, and has charged up seventeen trillion dollars in debt in six years. This is not a GOP-doctored number. Check it out for yourself. Now what have we purchased that was worth going into debt (much of it to China) for seventeen trillion dollars (and counting)? The economy is sluggish, employment figures are disturbing, and we keep on spending. Be that as it may, I write this blog to comment on issues of intelligence and international conflict, not domestic economics. In my position as host of this blog, I have opined on more than one occasion that I believe the Obama Administration has not handled the "IS" issue very well. As former CIA Director Leon Panetta (an Obama appointee) has stated, we should not have left Iraq without some military presence in place. In the second link provided above, Panetta argues that the IS has become an issue because of Obama's desire to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan quickly. Panetta also argues that the Administration should have made the decision last summer to support the New Syrian Army (NAS). I don't agree with Panetta on the last point, but I am very concerned by what appears to be a military policy that is designed to affect U.S. elections. No doubt the Democrats were not seeding the Tropics to create Hurricane Sandy and give Obama the opportunity to look "presidential" just prior to a national election, but in this instance I would not be surprised if politics was at play in forming military policy. And I am frustrated by the voting public for being such a patsy.
U.S. Air Force strikes on IS positions in Iraq and Syria will make nice clips for the evening news. Every American (count me in) will no doubt find some satisfaction in our response to the murders of James Foley and Steven Sotloff. But would we be engaged in this bombing campaign if we weren't approaching a pivotal election? Why am I so cynical? I have trouble supporting a policy that has so many questions and so few answers. More importantly, I believe our policy to arm surrogates to fight the ground campaign of this conflict is a repeat of past errors. One of the hallmarks of this Administration has been its unwillingness to provide a complete policy for any of its initiatives. I will repeat a few of the questions I have been asking over the past week. Will IS also be engaging regular Syrian forces with the weapons we provide? Of course they will, and the Russians, with their guy Assad sitting in Damascus, will respond. I do not believe that we should be involved in the Syrian civil war. But we will be, once the New Syrian Army turns its focus away from the IS and towards its real target, the Ba'ath regime in Damascus. Call me old school, but I believe wars are terrible things and should be fought with all vigor and ended as soon as possible. If the IS is a threat to our national security, then we need to revisit the original decision to high-tail it out of Iraq, and hit IS from three directions: Iraq, Kurdistan, and Syria. We should use every appropriate military tool to obliterate this group. It is possible to defeat an ideology; we ended the scourge of National Socialism (Nazis) in 1945, and we discredited communism with the fall of the Berlin Wall. If we attack the IS with this kind of approach, we will discourage the next nut job who wants to take us on. Instead, we have an air campaign, conducted alongside our French friends (again, this conflict is making for some strange bedfellows), and a surrogate army of ex-Syrian soldiers to bleed out for us "in proxy". I believe the New Syrian Army, trained and equipped by the U.S., alongside an air campaign that destroys the IS supply routes, will be successful. And this is where the problem begins. What if our surrogate is successful? Do we recognize them as the next Syrian government? Do we immediately end all military support and say "you've gotten all your getting from us, folks- good luck?" Again, no answers. Actually, that's not true. Someone may proffer up a vague response or two, but the real issue is, NO POLICY.
Juan Williams is a Democrat, and understandably looks forward to the political "bump" the Democrats will gain from the image of a "wartime President". But its an illusion. We all know that Obama is no Hawk. But he can play one on TV for a while in order to win an election. I hope Juan is wrong. I hope that the Democrats don't keep control of the Senate, so that I don't have to listen to people regret their vote for the next two years. President Obama does not appear to have a "complete" strategy for entering into this conflict with the IS. But he is very strategic when it comes to the political battlefield. I am very concerned by Obama's repeated threats to use Executive Authority to create and enforce domestic policy. Most important is the issue of Immigration; are we are going to reward folks whose presence in the United States is predicated on breaking our laws? Any form of Amnesty will only increase the flow of undocumented aliens crossing into the United States from Mexico; its not Rocket Science. So it becomes an issue of National Security. The only reason Obama is able to accuse Congress of not doing its job, is because the Democratically-controlled Senate under Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, refuses to let any House-passed legislation reach the floor of the Senate. It gives Obama the "manufactured" authority to act unilaterally. If the GOP controls both the House and the Senate, Obama will be forced to either pass or veto all sorts of issue-driven legislation. And the reasonable and well-thought House Immigration Bill provides an alternative to Amnesty. President Obama will no longer be able to tell the American people that he must use Executive Authority because Congress is lazy. Basically, we would have a government that utilizes the "checks and balances" theory of administration, which is the way its supposed to be.
Former CIA Director Panetta Critical of Iraq Pullout
The first news story that grabbed my attention today focused on threats made by the Islamic State (IS) to French, Australian and American citizens, and it came as no surprise. IS is not pleased with the ongoing air campaign which has disrupted IS attempts to establish itself in oil-rich areas of Kurdistan. It is estimated that IS already earns over one billion dollars a day in oil revenue. By the way, who is purchasing oil from IS? Shouldn't our military resources be focused on shutting down this IS cash cow? Now that kind of valuable intelligence would make an Accessions List sparkle (excuse the Agency insider comment). As for the threats against Yanks, Frenchies, and Aussies, take it at face value. This part of the world is known for drama. Remember the Iraqi Spokesman who, during Operation Enduring Freedom, continued to broadcast about Iraqi battlefield victories, as Abrams tanks were pulling up outside his office? In warfare, bullets are a lot more dangerous than words. The second article that grabbed my attention highlighted comments by Fox News contributor Juan Williams on the IS issue and how it plays into U.S. politics. Williams hypothesized that President Obama's approval ratings would improve because of his declaration of "war" against the IS. Williams added that Obama's improved image would benefit Democratic Senate and House candidates in this year's November midterm elections. I normally disagree with Juan regarding policy, but he is usually on the money with political forecasting. I agree that an increased military effort in support of our national security is a no-lose proposition for President Obama. But it doesn't make me happy.
I am one of those folks who believe that Hurricane Sandy helped President Obama win re-election in 2012. Mitt Romney playing defense for the last month and bizarre instances of voter fraud in key battleground states also played a role, but in the end President Obama won re-election in 2012, and it appears he might be about to do it again, albeit in a different political venue. I really like Juan Williams. I have heard he is a true gentleman and I believe he plays his part of the Fox News "counter argument" in fine fashion. But I am thoroughly disturbed with the glee he seems to express, as he pronounces that, yet again, smoke and mirrors will decide a major U.S. election. I did not vote for Barack Obama, and I am not a supporter of his policies. Oddly enough, considering the subject of this blog, foreign policy is not my "Obama complaint". Simply put, he has taken our grandchildren's credit card out of the White House wallet, and has charged up seventeen trillion dollars in debt in six years. This is not a GOP-doctored number. Check it out for yourself. Now what have we purchased that was worth going into debt (much of it to China) for seventeen trillion dollars (and counting)? The economy is sluggish, employment figures are disturbing, and we keep on spending. Be that as it may, I write this blog to comment on issues of intelligence and international conflict, not domestic economics. In my position as host of this blog, I have opined on more than one occasion that I believe the Obama Administration has not handled the "IS" issue very well. As former CIA Director Leon Panetta (an Obama appointee) has stated, we should not have left Iraq without some military presence in place. In the second link provided above, Panetta argues that the IS has become an issue because of Obama's desire to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan quickly. Panetta also argues that the Administration should have made the decision last summer to support the New Syrian Army (NAS). I don't agree with Panetta on the last point, but I am very concerned by what appears to be a military policy that is designed to affect U.S. elections. No doubt the Democrats were not seeding the Tropics to create Hurricane Sandy and give Obama the opportunity to look "presidential" just prior to a national election, but in this instance I would not be surprised if politics was at play in forming military policy. And I am frustrated by the voting public for being such a patsy.
U.S. Air Force strikes on IS positions in Iraq and Syria will make nice clips for the evening news. Every American (count me in) will no doubt find some satisfaction in our response to the murders of James Foley and Steven Sotloff. But would we be engaged in this bombing campaign if we weren't approaching a pivotal election? Why am I so cynical? I have trouble supporting a policy that has so many questions and so few answers. More importantly, I believe our policy to arm surrogates to fight the ground campaign of this conflict is a repeat of past errors. One of the hallmarks of this Administration has been its unwillingness to provide a complete policy for any of its initiatives. I will repeat a few of the questions I have been asking over the past week. Will IS also be engaging regular Syrian forces with the weapons we provide? Of course they will, and the Russians, with their guy Assad sitting in Damascus, will respond. I do not believe that we should be involved in the Syrian civil war. But we will be, once the New Syrian Army turns its focus away from the IS and towards its real target, the Ba'ath regime in Damascus. Call me old school, but I believe wars are terrible things and should be fought with all vigor and ended as soon as possible. If the IS is a threat to our national security, then we need to revisit the original decision to high-tail it out of Iraq, and hit IS from three directions: Iraq, Kurdistan, and Syria. We should use every appropriate military tool to obliterate this group. It is possible to defeat an ideology; we ended the scourge of National Socialism (Nazis) in 1945, and we discredited communism with the fall of the Berlin Wall. If we attack the IS with this kind of approach, we will discourage the next nut job who wants to take us on. Instead, we have an air campaign, conducted alongside our French friends (again, this conflict is making for some strange bedfellows), and a surrogate army of ex-Syrian soldiers to bleed out for us "in proxy". I believe the New Syrian Army, trained and equipped by the U.S., alongside an air campaign that destroys the IS supply routes, will be successful. And this is where the problem begins. What if our surrogate is successful? Do we recognize them as the next Syrian government? Do we immediately end all military support and say "you've gotten all your getting from us, folks- good luck?" Again, no answers. Actually, that's not true. Someone may proffer up a vague response or two, but the real issue is, NO POLICY.
Juan Williams is a Democrat, and understandably looks forward to the political "bump" the Democrats will gain from the image of a "wartime President". But its an illusion. We all know that Obama is no Hawk. But he can play one on TV for a while in order to win an election. I hope Juan is wrong. I hope that the Democrats don't keep control of the Senate, so that I don't have to listen to people regret their vote for the next two years. President Obama does not appear to have a "complete" strategy for entering into this conflict with the IS. But he is very strategic when it comes to the political battlefield. I am very concerned by Obama's repeated threats to use Executive Authority to create and enforce domestic policy. Most important is the issue of Immigration; are we are going to reward folks whose presence in the United States is predicated on breaking our laws? Any form of Amnesty will only increase the flow of undocumented aliens crossing into the United States from Mexico; its not Rocket Science. So it becomes an issue of National Security. The only reason Obama is able to accuse Congress of not doing its job, is because the Democratically-controlled Senate under Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, refuses to let any House-passed legislation reach the floor of the Senate. It gives Obama the "manufactured" authority to act unilaterally. If the GOP controls both the House and the Senate, Obama will be forced to either pass or veto all sorts of issue-driven legislation. And the reasonable and well-thought House Immigration Bill provides an alternative to Amnesty. President Obama will no longer be able to tell the American people that he must use Executive Authority because Congress is lazy. Basically, we would have a government that utilizes the "checks and balances" theory of administration, which is the way its supposed to be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)