Media plays Kingmaker in the Netherlands

All eyes were on the Netherlands this past week, as the Dutch went to the polls to elect a new government.  Since Donald Trump shocked the political establishment in Europe as well as the United States by winning the 2016 Presidential Election, the Liberals and Progressives in countries from France to Austria have been petrified that a European version of Trump was waiting in the wings.  In January opinion polls in Holland had the Conservative, anti-immigration leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV) Geert Wilders, running even with Prime Minister Mark Rutte and his ruling People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD).  As sometimes happens in politics, an unexpected "event" occurred a week or so before the election.  The Netherlands is home to over three-hundred thousand Turkish-Dutch dual citizens, and it just so happens that the Turks are preparing for elections as well.  Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was determined to have certain ruling party government ministers campaign in the Netherlands, to round up votes for his Justice and Development Party (AKP).  From out of nowhere, Prime Minister Rutte decides to stand up to Erdogan and refuse entry to a Turkish politician who was traveling to Holland for the purpose of building political support for Erdogan's incumbent government. 

In a bizarre switching-of-hats, Rutte was able to look tough with regards to Turkish immigrants, just as the Dutch are heading to polls to elect a government.  In an even stranger flip-flop, the Dutch media, who had been painting Wilders as a neo-Nazi because of his opposition to the resettlement of refugees in the Netherlands, begin to praise Rutte for his uncompromising position regarding Turkish immigrants.  Why the about-face?  Because recent polls in the Netherlands had made it clear that the Dutch people were no longer supporting an extremely liberal policy with regards to refugees and immigrants.  Wilders has never wavered in his policies regarding the immigration issue, and in response, he has been vilified in the Dutch and European Press and accused of being both racist and out-of-touch with the mainstream of Dutch society.  Let me be clear- while I am able to use terms like "Nazi" as I write this blog post, that kind of language can get you into big trouble in Europe circa 2017.  No problem for the press; they just make use of more "polite" adjectives and phrases to paint Wilders as a bigot.  In the end, the EU political establishment was able to breath a sigh of relief.  Wilders and the PVV gained five seats in Parliament, and it appears that Rutte and the VVD will lose roughly eight seats.  But Rutte won the day, as he will be able to patch together a governing coalition and continue on Prime Minister.

Now that the Dutch have voted, all the attention turns to France.  This French presidential election is unlike any France has previously experienced, as the Socialist and Center-Right candidates seem to be finished even before the first round voting is complete.  Marine Le Pen, leader of the Far Right National Front (FN), is all but guaranteed to be in the second-round runoff, as she can confidently guarantee at least twenty-five percent support in the first round.   Unfortunately for Le Pen, it has proven exceedingly difficult for the FN to build on that percentage.  As for the other candidates, Francois Fillon of the Center Right Republicans, seemed to be the safe bet.  He had emerged from a bruising inter-party struggle with former President Nicolas Sarkozy and Bordeaux Mayor Alain Juppe with momentum and enthusiastic support, but a serious controversy derailed his candidacy early-on, and with outgoing President Hollande deeply unpopular, the Socialists are just about out of the race as well.  Who is left to run against Marine le Pen?  Emmanuel Macron, a middle-of-the-road politician who is the leader of a new, moderate political movement called "En Marche!", has moved into the catbird seat, and will probably be the next President of the French Republic.  As French politics go, Macron is middle-of-the-road, but in reality, he is left-of-center.  Most analysts give Le Pen no chance of winning, but recent polls have shown her staunch supporters have grown from the twenty-five percent figure to somewhere closer to thirty-five percent.  Once the second-round is set, the entire French political community will put aside its difference and support whoever runs against Marine Le Pen and the FN.  The French media, which has turned lampooning and insulting Le Pen into a daily exercise, will no doubt ratchet-up the accusations of racism, anti-Semitism, and Islamophobia.  Outside of supporters of the FN, the press will be happy to lead the Crusade to send Le pen packing.  What is always so fascinating to observe is just how similar the media in Europe and the United States have become.

At one time, the press in western Europe prided itself on unbiased, non-political reporting.  The obsession with editorializing, at least as it is manifested in today's society, originated in the United States.  That's not to say that the British don't have a history of activist journalists; in fact, they've been an essential part of the British unwritten "checks-and-balances" tradition for centuries.  But on the continent, reporting, while at times quite sensational (Italy),  seemed to take very seriously its responsibility to present unbiased news.  The last two decades have ushered in quite a sea-change with regards to the media and press, particularly in France.  Analysts will argue that the European press has become more editorial-driven and political because of the rise in right-wing political parties.  Interestingly enough, the European political environment has seen an increase in far-left political activism as well, but don't expect to see the Green Party ever mentioned in the same breath as Marine Le Pen's FN.  As the new Left-oriented movement has been labeled "Progressive", the right-wing political groups have been called "Populist".  Analysts who believe that the Trump victory in 2016 will help conservatives and the Far Right don't really understand the current political environment in Europe.  Since mid-November 2016, after Donald Trump was declared the winner and it became obvious that recounts and other extreme efforts to rescue Hillary Clinton's candidacy were going to fail, the European media mobilized it resources to ensure that every media outlet and every newspaper stayed on message-that message being the deconstruction of Donald Trump as an honest, qualified, deserving President-Elect.  In December, Austrians elected Green Party candidate Alexander Van der Bellen over the conservative Nicolas Hofer.  Poor Hofer never had a chance, not after the Austrian media continually compared his candidacy to Donald Trump.  The media in Sweden, Italy and France have fallen in line, as any Trump allegation that fins its way across the Atlantic automatically becomes fact.  Much of this development is driven by a media on both sides of the ocean who were blindly enamored with former President Barack Obama, and Trump.  The European people share their media's love affair with Obama, and Trump is perceived as the "anti-Obama".  Any candidate who truly wants to win, self-identified as populist or not, had better think long and hard before praising anything related to the new U.S. president.  Marine le Pen has been supportive of Trump since he won the Republican nomination, so she is obliged to ride this out.   She isn't too concerned, though, as she knows the media would be lined-up against her candidacy regardless of her opinion of Donald Trump.

The media in the United States has lost all pretense of "fair and balanced".  With the exception of Fox News, the Drudge Report, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and the upstart Breitbart organization, the Left enjoys an intimidating dominance in mainstream news sources.  For years, the media's liberal bias was well-known, but never admitted, as some of the crusty old farts who ran these organizations demanded that at least the claim of unbiased reporting must be defended.  Most of the old-school geezers have been swept-aside, and the press in 2017 actually embraces its bias in favor of the Progressive Agenda.  The media is smarter than we are, which explains why so many Americans are still skeptical about Global Warming, and why others want to own their handguns for self-defense.  The media feels an all-encompassing obligation to support what is on our best interest, since, in from their perspective, many of us act contrary to what is best for our country and our planet.  This attitude is alive and well in Rome, Paris, Berlin, The Hague, Vienna and London. As our world gets smaller, the ties that connect the U.S. media to their peers on Europe grow stronger, therefore it should come as no surprise that every disproved, absurd, tired allegation made against candidate Trump somehow made its way into the European newspapers as well.  The pesky allegations made against Hillary Clinton were treated by the European Press as politically-driven exaggerations and lies.  Whether its in Brussels, Oslo, Dublin or Prague, conservative candidates in Europe have an uphill climb, and unfortunately, the press will make sure that Donald Trump is more of a hindrance than a help.  I was not surprised that Mark Rutte managed to stay Prime Minister in Holland, but I wouldn't get too comfortable if I were in his shoes.  Being one-half French, my heart always brings me back to this year's Presidential Election in France and its consequences.  Everything points to a victory for Emmanuel Macron and "En Marche!", but yet, Marine Le Pen represents so many things which are sacred to the French people.  She is the decided underdog, and she has never been afraid of sitting down and breaking bread with the underemployed and struggling poor white families of Marseille, Bordeaux, Paris, Calais and Brest.  She has finally broken with her father's legacy, as she is more likely to be criticized for advocating French departure from the EU than she is of being a bigot.  Marine Le Pen sings loudly and boldly about the French language, French history and French culture, and this appeal alone could push her over the fifty percent mark in the second round.  But like Trump last November, le Pen must battle not only a room full of political opponents, but an aggressive, entitled media as well.   

What conclusions to draw regarding the recent events in Turkey, and how those events impact U.S. policy in the region.

Link: Attempted Coup In Turkey- NY Times

When I first saw the televised announcements last weekend regarding what appeared to be a coup attempt in Turkey, it didn't take long for me to realize that whoever was attempting to take control of the government in Turkey had absolutely no idea what they were doing.  There is good reason for my surprise; coups are not uncommon in recent world history, with Turkey having already experienced a few in the last half-century.  As I tried to make sense from what little information was available, I kept expecting to hear that the government had been taking into custody, the airport secured, and heavy armor rumbling down every major thoroughfare.  The plotters were able to gain control of the radio for a limited time, during which they announced that the coup was necessary to protect against further erosion of civil liberties.  The plotters announced a governing council and promised to adhere to all existing treaties.  This message should have continued playing, or at least a blackout should have gone in affect.  Instead, almost immediately after the attempted coup was announced in the western press, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was on FaceTime and Skype, instructing the people to stand up to the coup by occupying the town squares and taking to the city streets, which they did, en force.  Within an hour or two, Erdogan was holding a press conference at Ataturk International Airport (I'm still not sure why he was on a plane to begin with), announcing that the coup had failed, and that the plotters would be treated harshly.

In order to understand what occurred in Turkey, a bit of background information is necessary.  For centuries, Turkey existed as the Ottoman Empire.  In the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries, the Ottoman Empire was an international superpower, at times occupying European territory up to the gates of Vienna.  The Empire was ruled by a Sultan, who was also recognized as Caliph, the religious leader of Muslims.  As history demonstrates time and time again, all Empires seem to have an expiration date.  The Ottomans, in an attempt to rejuvenate a crippled economy and recapture international respect, made the mistake of joining the losing side in World War One (Austria-Hungary and Germany).  For most folks, the war ended in 1918, but Turkey suffered through both a civil war and a war of independence simultaneously.  A leader emerged from the struggle who was destined to transform Turkey.  Kemal Ataturk was a former highly-decorated Ottoman Army Officer, and he ushered in what we know today as modern Turkey.  Ataturk was determined to create a secular Turkey.  He abolished the Sultanate and the Caliphate, and required that Turkish be taught in public schools.  Women were encouraged to abandon the headscarf and men stopped wearing the fez.  During the Second World War, Turkey remained neutral until the very end, with Ataturk in firm control of the government.  When Ataturk finally died, he left behind a democracy backed by a very strong military.  Over the years, when the military has grown concerned about corruption, or the rise in religious extremism, or what it perceived as a threat to secular Turkey, it has called out the troops and tanks and removed certain governments.  At times, the military has kept control of the government much longer than anticipated, but democratic elections would eventually take place.  Turkey has had a thriving democracy in part because of the military's willingness to protect its secular traditions. 

In the last five years, Erdogan has moved Turkey further and further away from this tradition.  Most recently, he has boldly moved against the media, not hesitating to arrest any journalist who speaks against his Administration.  Erdogan has always governed in coalition with Islamist parties, and has already taken steps to remove military officers who might oppose his future intentions.  The idea that the Turkish military would attempt a coup was not a surprise.  The surprise was that this coup never had a chance of succeeding.  Erdogan blames the coup on disgruntled military officers and Turks in exile who he considers enemies.  But nothing he says makes any sense, and I'm not alone in my suspicion.  I believe that Erdogan either planned or encouraged the coup himself.  The plotters never took the necessary actions to give their efforts any hope of success.  Where was the Air Force, the military branch which has been traditionally the most hostile to Erdogan?  Why wasn't the airport occupied and Erdogan's plane shot down when it approached for landing?  Why wasn't the government arrested or at least detained?

Regardless of who was behind the coup attempt, the result is particularly frightening.  Erdogan is purging everything short of elementary schools.  Anyone who had ever acknowledged any type of opposition to Erdogan has been arrested or fired.  The Turks who came out into the streets, shouting their support for Erdogan and waving Turkish flags, now have the dictator they deserve.  The first to suffer will be the Academic community, then the economy will grind to a halt.  Erdogan will blame the West, in particular the United States.  As far as I'm concerned, removing our military presence from Turkey is overdue.  I'm fed up hearing stories of our servicemen and their families being harassed by Erdogan's nationalist thugs.  If the Turks don't want us in Turkey, then we should leave.  Let Erdogan negotiate his way out of NATO.  He's already guaranteed that Turkey will never be a member of the European Union.  I think Erdogan has visions of resurrecting the Ottoman Empire, but those days of grandeur are long gone.  Turkey does not have the economy or the infrastructure to be a superpower.  Don't be surprised, though, if Ankara starts to resemble Caracas.

Iraq update: militias, ISF continue to pressure ISIS in Anbar; ISIS causes more trouble in Diyala.

The central line of Iraq continues to be the heart and soul of the ongoing conflict between ISIS and the Iraqi government and it's allies.  In a predictable effort to distract attention away from the Iraqi Security Forces' (ISF) offensive in Anbar to retake Ramadi and relieve Haditha, ISIS has stepped up SVBIED (Suicide Vehicle-Borne Improvised Explosive Device) and random free-fire attacks in Diyala Province. Not to be outdone, the ISF and militias/Popular Mobilization Units (UPMs) have stepped up the pressure on both Ramadi and Fallujah.  The ISF pushed back a frontal attack just outside Ramadi, in which ISIS utilized its usual weapon of choice, the SVBIED (when are they going to use up their supply of suicidal morons?); simultaneously the ISF conducted moderately successful attacks to the north and south of Ramadi.  With ISIS under siege by the ISF in Ramadi and the PMUs in Fallujah, it has become even more imperative that ISIS raise some hell close to Baghdad, which might cause enough of an outcry from the civilian population that the government is forced to transfer some of its troops from the Anbar offensive.  Possibly because of its proximity to Iran, ISIS seems determined to make a statement in Diyala Province.

as we've pointed out, Diyala Province shares an eastern border with the Islamic Republic of Iran.  Recently the Iranians have expressed a growing concern regarding what appears to be ISIS' growing strength in the Province.  By conducting SVBIED attacks on military and police facilities, along with a variety of civilian targets, ISIS has Diyala Province suffering from its own kind of siege.  The governorship, which is controlled by the Shi'a, loudly and repeatedly requested that troops pulled from Diyala for the Anbar offensive be returned to the Province.  To add to the drama, a serious schism is developing between the Shi'a and Sunni, who have in the past lived as one community in most parts of Diyala. The Sunni leaders in Diyala claim that the governorship and the provincial administration is being run by the Shi'a Badr Corps/Organization, which was born in Iran and is seeded with all sorts of fun Iranian advisors and representatives.  One positive move was the reinstatement of the Sunni Deputy Governor, the hope being that now the two groups can start working together again in opposition to ISIS.  While the proximity of active ISIS units to the Iranian border is disturbing, the real threat (and probably part of ISIS' long-term strategy), is the encirclement of Baghdad.  ISIS knows that it will lose some ground during this current offensive in Anbar. What they hope to achieve is to mitigate the amount of territory that they will undoubtedly be obliged to reconquer, in order to eventually complete the isolation of Baghdad itself.  ISIS is also determined to successfully occupy Haditha, which has been under siege for months.

In Anbar and Salah ad-Din, intra-tribal conflict continues to be a problem in the Sunni community.  Tribes and communities who forcefully opposed ISIS are calling out those that didn't,or even went so far as to provide the Islamic State fighters with support.  The government in Baghdad is nervously calling on all its Sunni allies in Anbar to put some water on this dangerous spark.

Another interesting development to keep an eye on is the decision by Turkey to end a two-year informal ceasefire with the Kurdish PKK.  Not surprisingly, the PKK has elected to retaliate, and three Turkish soldiers can be added to the fatalities list.  What is of interest is the attitude of Iran to these developments.  Iran continues to support beleaguered Syrian strongman Bashir al-Assad, which is something that really gives Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan a case of the red-ass.  I'm not sure what really went down between these two, but Erdogan seems bound and determined to see Assad totally removed from power.  Im sure the Iranians are thrilled with this possible miscalculation on Erdogan's part, and have already reached out to the PKK to express their "support".  Just how far will Iran go to expand this new round of incidents between Turkey and the PKK?

Erdogan Moves Turkey Closer To The Edge (Part II)

Link: A. Erdogan Blames Europe For Paris Attacks
          B. Troubling Comments By Turkey's President
          C. Turkey Purges The Military
          D. Turkish Intel Arming Al-Qaida In Syria?


I know I'm not making friends by comparing someone to Adolf Hitler, but if I'm anything, I'm honest.  I see too many similarities not to comment.  And while the free world was distracted by the Soviet purges, pogroms and hostile military movement against the Baltic States and Finland, Hitler was able to rebuild his military and remove the last vestiges of opposition.  Erdogan has his Soviet Union, and its calls itself The Islamic State of the Levant (ISIL).  As this first-of-its-kind, terrorist conventional army continues to defy Obama's air campaign, the Kurds, Assad's leftovers, and the newly-minted Free Syrian Army, the west tip-toes around Erdogan because he can be a deal-maker in this conflict, in one direction or the other.  The Turkish military is in a similar position as the Iranian armed forces.  An apparent threat to national security is snuggling right up their ass, and they need to decide to what extent they wish to get involved.  In January, 2014, rumors were circulating that the Turks were providing arms to Al-Qaida through the Turkish border crossing with Syria.  This last week, official documents were leaked that appear to corroborate that accusation.  For those of you who are regular readers of my blog, you know I have been on a bit of a rant regarding the media obsession with separating Al-Qaeda and ISIL.  The end-receiver of the weapons and ammunition in question was Al-Qaida.  Well, Al-Qaida in Syria has no need for that type of equipment, but ISIL does.  The bad guys already know that Al-Qaeda and ISIL are two limbs connected to the same body, and the sooner we stop pretending otherwise, the better of we will be.

On the sixteenth of January, Turkish President Erdogan publicly commented on last week's deadly terror-attack in Paris.  The first and second links contain the necessary details.  I'm so offended by what he had to say, that I refuse to repeat it.  But we must keep one thing in mind: Erdogan is a crafty politician.  He has followed some framework up to this point that has left him as a virtual dictator, in command of one of the world's largest militaries.  I know a Cuban leader, a Venezuelan, a North Korean and a crazy Argentinean hag named Christina who would love to be in his shoes.  I believe every step he takes, every public announcement, is calculated.  Hitler would make bold, sometimes irrational claims, just to see how far he could push the envelope.  Erdogan is playing the same game.  What can he get away with?  Its no secret that he wants Assad out of Syria.  Hell, if that's all he wanted in order to be  team player, I'm sure Assad would be on ice by now.  But Erdogan has his sights set higher.  I worry about possession of the NATO weapons in Turkey, and I worry about the potential thousands of hostages our military and their families who are stationed in Turkey, would make.  Erdogan as a wild-card comes at a terrible time for Obama, NATO and the EU.  What they need more than anything is a successful resolution to the conflicts in Syria and Iraq.  Until the U.S. decides to fully deploy in those war zones, the conflict will continue to escalate.  The Iranians could be game-changers, if they gambles and fully mobilized into Iraq, but I just don't see it.  I also don't see a way out of this mess for Obama, at least not during his term in office.  As for Recep Erdogan, I believe he supports ISIL at the moment, because he wants Assad removed without having to make a military commitment.  He has surreptitiously allowed arms and supplies to reach ISIL because he sees the organization as his surrogate "for-the-moment". I used to be concerned that Erdogan was a closet Islamist.  I don't believe that anymore, even though it might have been true at one time.  Erdogan has plans for Turkey, and he is in every picture.  The removal of Assad is important because it provides validation of his authority, bona fides of his international influence, so to speak.  I also don't think he is as patient as he once was.  I expect he will lay his cards on the table sometime this year, at least as far as NATO missiles and U.S. bases are concerned.  With the scourge of Terrorism more dangerous than ever, we live in scary times.  Recep Erdogan only makes things scarier.

Erdogan Moves Turkey Closer To The Edge (Part I)

Link: A. Erdogan Blames Europe For Paris Attacks
          B. Troubling Comments By Turkey's President
          C. Turkey Purges The Military
          D. Turkish Intel Arming Al-Qaida In Syria?

Turkish Flag

The more President Recep Erdogan aligns Turkey with the cause of Radical Islam, the more I feel my heart breaking.  You see, I am a Turkophile.  I studied Ottoman history when I was younger, and have enjoyed a number of visits to Turkey.  One of the most startling impressions I recall during my initial trip to Turkey, was that the Turkish people appeared to be much more European than "Middle Eastern" (forgive the use of that term).  I had spent time in Jordan and the Gulf States, and also in Lebanon.  I expected Turks to be similar in appearance and culture to Jordanians and Egyptians, but I was mistaken.  I had no trouble imagining the Turkish people living in Greece, or the Balkans.  In fact, hundreds of thousands of ethnic Turks do live in the Balkans, in Kosovo, Macedonia, Albania and Bosnia-Herzegovina.  A substantial number of Turks also live in the Thrace region of Greece, although no where near the numbers who inhabited Thessaloniki at the turn of the century 1900.  Following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire and its subsequent disposal in the bonfire of history (1922), Turkey's new leader was determined to steer a modern, secular path for new Turkish state.  Kemal Ataturk was successful at just about every turn, as the people were more than ready for his message of peace, accountability and reform.  Turkey managed to stay neutral during the Second World War (not declaring war on Germany until February 23, 1945).  The Turkish people were in no position (or mood) for another World War, and they used peacetime to expand and diversify the Turkish economy, reform the educational system, and rewrite the tax codes.  When first taking power, Ataturk decided to end the Turkish habit of wearing the Fez.  He was successful, and it became acceptable for women to dress in the European style.  Ataturk was so successful because basically the Turkish people were of one mind.  They wanted to put the rigid, excessively conservative traditions of the Ottomans back into the seventeenth century, where they belonged.  The economy of Turkey slowly began to resemble its European neighbors, as hard-work, determination and dedication became the keys to personal success.  In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Turkey took a hit in the international press because of the amount of hashish that was being grown and exported out of Turkey.  As an Example, the Turkish Courts locked up a few European (and one very vocal American) smugglers and threw away the key.  The Turks thought that they were responding appropriately, but instead, the curse of "The Midnight Express" continued to damage Turkey's international reputation and tourism for at least a decade.

Over the past three decades, the Turkish economy has experienced its share of highs and

Flag of NATO

lows.  Fortunately, the highs outnumber the lows. At times, the Turkish economy has been a juggernaut.  Even after the end of the Cold War, when the newly free economies of Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary were expected to stand out, Turkey continued to double other European nations in percentage of GDP growth.  The Turkish people do not shy away from hard work, and Turkey seems to be permanently poised on the precipice of developing a full-scale European style economy.  The EU is waiting for just such an indication to move the Turks closer to EU membership.  Roughly fifteen years ago, the Turkish government made a huge statement by normalizing relations with Israel and beginning a series of joint military exercises.  The west and NATO were thrilled with this development, because it confirmed in their minds what they had hoped: that Turkey, regardless of its democratically-elected government, was still controlled by the pro-west, secular Military High Command.  The Turkish Army had already exhibited its willingness to remove a democratically-elected government or two, if they weren't pleased with the direction of the country.  For the most part, the Turkish people seemed content with the "backstop" provided by the Generals.  The United States/NATO, with bases in Turkey and missiles on Turkish territory pointed at the USSR, were only too happy to train and equip what had become an outstanding armed forces.

Fast-forward to 2015.  Sometime since the turn of the millennium, the Turkish people have become more comfortable with religion in their politics.  When Recep Erdogan was first elected Prime Minister in 2003 (he had been mayor of Istanbul from 1994-98), everyone was aware that his political party was sympathetic to some of the groups on the

Putin, Erdogan, and Berlusconi 2005; source: Kremlin.ru

religious right.  But Erdogan played his cards like a master.  He was patient, and used the time to flirt with the west and the EU, all the while insulating the Turkish bureaucracy and military with his sycophants.  Erdogan had a plan, and it required that he stay in office until 2014, at which time he would run for president (successfully).  He didn't miss a beat; all the way, Erdogan loyalists started showing up in the police and intelligence agencies, on the bench, in the different branches of the military, and as political strong-men around Turkey proper.  By 2010, Erdogan felt safe enough to speak ill of the west and the EU.  The United States was next on his list, and the end of the good relations with Israel was only a matter of time.  What a far cry from Erdogan at his initial inauguration in 2003, when he spoke so respectfully of the EU and Turkey's rightful place in the Union.  Erdogan began to create a new foreign policy for Turkey: one that appears headed for the end of Turkish membership in NATO.  It's safe to say that unless something happens very soon that changes the direction of Turkish politics, the idea of Turkey being a member of the EU is nothing more than a joke.  What I find fascinating, is that Erdogan appears to be replicating what Hitler achieved in 1933-39.  Erdogan is determined to create a strong Turkey, so strong that alliances can be made at the moment and discarded when no longer needed.  He wants a rebirth of the nationalism that coincided with the Ottoman Empire at it's zenith, and he is to be the new Suleiman the Magnificent.  Just as Hitler discreetly promoted anti-Jewish and anti-minority movements, Erdogan quietly (but obviously) encourages right-wing groups to attack U.S. sailors and march against foreign influence in Turkey.  His lasting campaign has been internal, as he begins a determined assault on the traditionally non-aligned, vocal Turkish press.  Last year, a scandal involving corruption and persons close to Erdogan, almost brought down the government.  As I write this, the bill has come due.  Journalists have been arrested, dailies shut down, and untold numbers of persons threatened.  This pattern seems so familiar.  In the past, the west and the Turkish people could have relied upon the military to return the balance by staging a coup and replacing now-President Erdogan.  But that part of his plan has already gone into affect.  Erdogan purged the military hierarchy in 2013, and today one in five Turkish Generals sit in prison (see Link C for details).  The details concerning the prosecutor's case against hundreds of military officers is much too complicated for this blog.  But I've read just about every document I can find, and this is without doubt a well-planned and flawlessly executed operation to neuter the Turkish military.  The only Generals and Admirals left on the General Staff are cowed yes-men and Erdogan Sycophants.  Again, just like Hitler.  (End of Part I)

The Islamic State: Have We Lost Our Opportunity?

Links: A. Jihadists Building Training Camps In Iraq & Syria
           B. IS Kills Iranian Revolutionary Guard General In Iraq
           C. Leader Of Shia Militia Killed By IS In Iraq

We all have our routines.  In the morning, before I take a shower or have anything to eat, I hop online and read email and a bit of news.  I usually scan the Drudgereport, which is very effective at relaying certain "trends" in the U.S. media.  For instance, lately I can't find any news about our involvement in Syria and Iraq.  Thank goodness for the Long War Journal, which not only has the pulse of every hot spot, but keeps relevant stories accessible chronologically.  As for the mainstream media, the issue has dropped off the face of the earth.  When President Obama announced a U.S.-led air campaign against Islamic State (IS) targets in Iraq and Syria, the media was giddy.  Even I expected daily stories of bombing sorties and missions to cripple the IS supply network.  Respected military strategists, and probably the Pentagon itself, were quietly not optimistic that an air campaign not operating in concert with ground forces would ultimately fail.  The knee-jerk reaction on behalf of the administration was loud enough to shatter glass, and on September 10, President Obama announced a continuation of the air campaign alongside an effort to train, equip, and stand-up an ethnic Syrian army, which would ideally become the missing "ground forces".  Since that announcement on September 10, the details released by the administration on this force have been scant, confusing and sometimes contradictory. We were told by the Pentagon that this ethnic Syrian force would be led by former Syrian Army officers, whose goals were a secular, free political society in Syria.  Later we were told that it would take three, possibly four months to stand-up this army, which eventually adopted the moniker "Free Syrian Army".  The strangest announcement I recall claimed that the Free Syrian Army would not be allowed to engage in offensive operations, that it would be limited to defensive actions only.  About the same time, a news report from Agency France Press announced that an effort by forces opposed to the IS, including the Free Syrian Army, had been soundly defeated after attempting an ambush.  An ambush stretches the limits of defensive action about as far as it can be stretched, I think.

For those of you familiar with the term, the U.S. involvement in Syria and Iraq has become a complete Goat Rope.  In other words, its a mess.  Two months ago I asked a set of questions that weren't answered.  I repeated those questions last month, and it appears I will be going for month number three.  Reports from both Iraq and Syria appear to indicate that the IS in on the offensive.  In Iraq, the IS has chosen to solidify its hold on Fallujah (and Ramadi?) and continues to swallow up town after town in the greater Baghdad area.  I half-expected an IS attack on Baghdad by now, but the bad guys are obviously thinking a bit more strategically that I am.  As the Iranians become increasingly involved, the IS has stepped up its presence in Diyala Province, which borders Iran.  No doubt the Ayatollahs and the Muftis and the Grand Poobahs in Qom are freaking out that these Sunni Apostates are just a cow patty toss away from Iran, and will demand that Iranian resources be coalesced to meet the threat.  This will leave the Shia militias leaderless (a few are already leaderless, as detailed in links 2 and 3), not to mention a militia or two may scurry over to Diyala as well.  The Iraqi Army has been relying on the Shia militias, which have been instrumental in the defense of the Baiji Refinery and the Iraqi Army's efforts to defend greater Baghdad.  Without Iranian assistance, the Iraqi Army doesn't stand a chance against the IS.

I had predicted that Syrian de-facto President Bashir al-Assad would take full advantage of the allied bombing campaign against the IS, to repair and re-equip the regular Syrian Army.  I opined about the reconstitution of armor (heavy tanks) units and even the possibility of a few new helicopter gunships, courtesy of Assad's best buddy, Vlad Putin.  Instead, I continue to read story after story of IS units kicking the shit out of regime forces in the far east provinces and also near Aleppo and even Damascus.  I assumed that the dream of having a Russian naval base in the Mediterranean would inspire Putin to throw in all his chips behind Assad.  Ideally, the Russians should have taken the break provided by the commencement of the allied air campaign (and the headline-grabbing Kobane struggle) to resupply and equip Assad's regular army, which would then be in a position to defeat a weakened IS and keep control of Syria.  I know this will come as a surprise to many in the west, but the urban populations of Syria (Christian, Muslim, and whatever else) actually support Assad.  But once Turkish President Erdogan decided that Assad wasn't his "cup of tea", many regional leaders jumped on Erdogan's bandwagon.  This explains why the local media refuses to broadcast the fact that urban Syrians, including the majority of Christians, support Assad and believe he has taken positive steps to protect them throughout his time in office.

Back to my simple list of questions:

• What is the status of the Free Syrian Army?  
• Has the FSA been stood up?  
• Does the FSA have the option to undertake offensive operations or is it intended exclusively for defense?  
• What is the status of the air campaign?  
• What percentage of missions has been flown by our allies, compared to the number of missions flown by the U.S. Air Force?  
• If the IS occupies Baghdad, will this trigger greater military involvement on behalf of the United States?  
• If the IS were defeated in Syria, and the FSA and regular Syrian began a struggle for control of the country, would the U.S. military get involved? 

Biden Humiliated By Turkey

Link: A. Biden Looking Foolish In Turkey
          B. Taliban On The Move

Please read the links before going any further.  I don't want to repeat the details which are included, and they are essential to the discussion today.  These two links bring the cold hard truth home to our doorstep.  Our foreign policy is a complete failure; and utter disaster.  I can't recall a foreign policy this opaque, weak, and self-defeating in the 238-year history of our Republic.  Vice President Joe Biden, unable to sit still for five minutes because in his mind he should be president, continues to expand the traditional role of the office.  Maybe I shouldn't blame Crazy Uncle Joe.  Instead of making the trip to Turkey himself, President Obama continued his weekly diet of executive actions, golf, and fund-raising.  After Biden insulted Turkish President Erdogan last month (and screwed up the less-than publicized apology which was only reported on Foxnews), he was the last person who should have making a trip to Turkey.  It provided all the U.S.-hating groups, including the one who abused our sailors last month, with an opportunity to take to the streets and protest this Great Satan.  The Turkish press had a field day.  And as usual, Crazy Uncle Joe had no clue what was going on, returning back to the United States to report that the trip had been a "tremendous success".  While Biden was describing his diplomatic coup to anyone who would listen (CNN, NPR, MSNBC, CNBC, and CBS, who combined don't equal the audience of Foxnews), Erdogan was openly and pointedly spewing egregious insults to the United States.  Erdogan stated that Turkey was "against impertinence, recklessness, and endless demands".  "Why is someone coming to this region from 12,000 kilometers away?", Erdogan asked rhetorically to a meeting of Turkish businessmen in Ankara.  The U.S. Incirlik Air Force Base in Turkey has been denied permission to fly sorties against Islamic State targets in Syria and Iraq.  This makes the operation that much more expensive and complicated.  The Turks refused to allow the use of Incirlik during Operation Enduring Freedom as well, and President Bush was the first leader to bend over and touch toes for Erdogan.  What I would give for a leader in the White House! Ronald Reagan would have told the Turks that if you won't let us use our Air Base, then we will shut it.  No more rent, no more financial support to the local economy, no more U.S. military families supporting the Turkish tourist industry, and most important, no more sales of F16s or spare parts to the Turkish Air Force.  Instead, we allow tin-horn dictators like Putin, Erdogan and Assad to determine our foreign policy.  Erdogan had plenty of opportunities to intervene militarily in Syria and remove Assad before the beginning of the current anti-Islamic State air campaign.  Instead of facing the music for his lack of nerve, he just kicks more sand I our face. 

The Taliban is alive and well and establishing a military presence in Kabul.  Historically, this is the first step towards turning the capital city into a urban war zone, which will allow the Taliban, who are much more comfortable with guerilla-type tactics, to occupy the city one house, one street, one neighborhood at a time.  Before the Soviets departed in 1980, they installed a puppet government in Kabul which was supported by a reasonably sized and well-equipped army.  The fear was that this Soviet-back government was going to keep control of some of the larger cities while the Mujahideen took over the rest of the country.  Events didn't play out as expected, as the Mujahideen (we call them "The Taliban" nowadays) moved into the cities and began a campaign of destabilization of authority.  It happened so quickly that the Russians had no opportunity to evacuate the majority of their remaining resources in Kabul.  Deja vu, folks, deja vu.  The U.S. troops left in Afghanistan are under instructions to complete training assignments with the Afghan Army and also to protect remaining U.S. Bases as resources are evacuated back to Europe and the United States.  Is there any question that a year or so after the last U.S. soldier departs, the Taliban will be back in power?  Not to me there isn't.  President Obama will then have the honor of proudly declaring both Afghanistan and Iraq "free of the U.S. military".  Just how much does this guy hate the military? 

As for December 2014, Iraq is embroiled in a conflict against Islamic extremists, and the only real military support is coming from Iran.  The Iranians never met a vacuum that they didn't fill.  All the positive developments from Operation Enduring Freedom are either gone or in jeopardy.  Afghanistan is producing poppies for drug production again like nobodies business.  It is estimated that the Islamic State is benefitting financially from the opium trade.  While Iraq and the Kurds fight for survival against the Islamic State, and Syria continues to be ground zero for Islamic State strategic successes, the United States continues to lead an air campaign (with the support of the Saudis, the UAE, and Qatar) that is beginning to appear ineffectual.  As highlighted by a recent post, the Islamic State is so fat in resources that it has started the process of expansion into north Africa.  By the way, are we still training the New Syrian Army?  Has anyone heard an update recently?  I've been waiting patiently for some clarification on the alleged "defensive posture only" intentions of this army which is being trained and equipped by the U.S. taxpayer.

What is our foreign policy and military strategy in Syria?  Iraq?  What about Afghanistan?  When the Taliban retakes the country and all the teachers are shot, the little schoolgirls beaten and the schools burned to the ground, will we establish diplomatic relations with the Taliban?  What are we trying to achieve with the air campaign in Syria?  if we destroy the Islamic State, Bashir al-Assad and his recently refurbished army and air force will retake the country.  Putin will be thrilled, but is that in our best interest?  With regards to Turkey, will the administration have any response to the public insults, the physical assault of our sailors, and anti-U.S. speeches and demonstrations?

I invite any defender of this administration to address these questions here on my blog.  You will have the same amount of space that I use, and you will see no rebuttal for the entire day.  Please come and explain what we can expect in the next two years in the way of diplomacy.  And help us understand what exactly is going on with the New Syrian Army and the billions being spent to stand it up.  Have we written off Iraq and Afghanistan?  If not, what are our diplomatic options and initiatives to protect the freedoms and rights that the people of Iraq and Afghanistan have been able to enjoy for the past few years?  Those rights and freedoms were obtained with the blood and sweat of U.S. soldiers.  Doesn't that give us some equity in the evolving situation?      

What's Up With The Republic Of Turkey Nowadays?

Links: War Moves Into Turkey


Wikipedia On Turkey



Where have you been, Turkey?  Every few days I am obliged to create a post about the struggle against the Islamic State in the Levant (ISIS, ISIL or IS); bad news seldom takes a holiday.  How did we get to this place?  Following the ritualistic beheading of two Americans, President Obama announced that the United States was taking military action against IS targets in Iraq and Syria.  Obama added that the United States would, under no circumstances, introduce ground forces into the conflict.  Instead, the U.S. Air Force would bomb the IS into the Stone Age.  For good measure, we are training and arming a surrogate army to finish off the IS with a ground campaign (but not for four, maybe five months because that's how long it takes to train and equip a surrogate army in 2014).  The surrogate element identifies itself as the "Free Syrian Army", and consists of many Syrian Army former officers and front-line troops.  President Obama was able to enlist France, The United Kingdom, and the Arab Gulf monarchies to join his "Coalition of the Unwilling to use Ground Troops", but some enormously important questions remain unanswered.  What will the Free Syrian Army do after the IS has been defeated?  Will it turn its weapons on the regular Syrian Army, which is heavily supported by Vladimir Putin and Russia?  What about all the other groups the Administration has parade by during press conferences (Al-Nusra Front, Khorasan, Al-Qaeda)?  Are they also targets of the Free Syrian Army? And if not, how does the IS tell them apart?

To repeat myself, where are you, Turkey?  The Turks share a southern border with both Iraq and Syria.  (A large part of that geographical piece is considered by the Kurds to be part of Kurdistan).  For centuries, back to the years of the Ottoman Empire, the Turks and the Kurds have struggled for control of this part of the world (since its not Asia Minor, and its not really Mesopotamia, I will just refer to it as "Asia Minopotamia").  Some of the blackest pages in Turkey's personal history book have to do with Kurdistan.  On more than a few occasions over the past two centuries, the Turks have committed acts of genocide against the Kurds.  I realize that by saying this, I royally piss off a number of very close Turkish friends, but it is my interpretation of history; believe me, I wish it weren't so.  The Kurds have always been a thorn in Turkey's side, and when historically bad famines and droughts hit Turkey, the Kurds were last to receive help.  I won't spend anymore time on the subject, especially since there is so much open source material available.  Fast forward to 2014, the Kurds are fighting for their lives not against the Turks or famine, or even Saddam Hussein, but against the IS.  At present, its not really possible to draw a static map of who-occupies-what.  The Kurds are in possession of some territory in northern Syria, but the main theater of war at the moment is in Iraq.  In the north, the Kurds are fighting the IS, and the central part of Iraq, the Iraqi Army and Shia Brigades are opposing the IS.  Back in Syria, the regular Syrian Army continues to occasionally engage IS forces.  For the time being, though, all eyes seem to be on very north central Syria and the town of Kobani.

At times I find it difficult to accept that Syria and Turkey share such a continuous, strategic border. For many centuries, the border did not exist, as Syria and Turkey were both part of the Ottoman Empire.  Now, for all practical purposes, the border separates wealth from poverty, Europe from the Levant, and West from East.  I know many will disagree, and argue (effectively, I'm sure) that Asia Minor is not Europe and that Turkey is not a first-world country.  I make my call through personal experience.  I was obsessed with Turkey in my younger days, and loved every chance I had to visit.  The Turks are a friendly, proud people; you will rarely see beggars or hungry children in Turkey.  But the Turkey of my youth is disappearing.  Secular Turkey (with its handful of generals ready to take charge if the civilians get too ambitious) has seen a rise in Islamist political activities and a movement to strengthen Turkey's Islamic cultural heritage and traditions.  President Recep Erdogan, who was elected in August 2014 with a 51% to 38% margin over his nearest competitor, is not fan of the Army.  During the later half of the last century, the Turkish military did not hesitate to remove elected leaders at the slightest sign of movement away from secularism.  I believe Erdogan is too popular for the military to act against, so I just keep my fingers crossed that he doesn't allow Turkey to suffer an Islamic revolution like the one that swallowed Iran in 1979.

Regarding the situation in Syria and Iraq, where does Turkey stand?  One thing to keep in mind: Turkey has a FORMIDABLE Armed Forces.  There was a time when Turkey was only interested in keeping an army larger than Greece's, but membership in NATO changed everything.  For all practical purposes, Turkey's military was created, nursed and raised to adulthood by the United States military.  Because of the all-important NATO missile sites located in Turkey (and aimed at Russia, I believe, although there may be one aimed at the Eifel Tower), The United States was more than willing to train and equip the Turkish Army.  Roughly 15 years ago, the Turkish military took the surprising step of conducting joint operations with Israel (the advent of Erdogan has cooled relations between Ankara and Jerusalem).  In equipment, size, and readiness, I believe that the Turkish military is en par with France, the UK and Germany (Greece who?).  Where does Turkey stand?  Why haven't the Turks taken a stand against the IS, which is about as nasty a group as there is?  Allegedly, Erdogan offered to join the Coalition and use the Turkish Army if Obama would guarantee the removal of Assad in Damascus.  Obama does not have the testicular fortitude for such a call, which would piss off Putin to no end.  At the moment, Turkey sees no strategy that benefits Turkey, with the exception of waiting until the dust settles.  If Turkey mobilizes, they would sweep the IS from the face of the earth in a matter of days (Turkish Special Forces....Bad Ass).

 But what good does that do if Assad, the thorn in Turkey's backside, stays in power?  Maybe Erdogan is thinking that an IS government in Damascus is preferable to the Ba'athists and Assad?  Wouldn't that be something...Turkey joins the conflict ON THE SIDE of the IS!  Its just a thought; it can't happen.  Turkey is a functioning Democracy with a Tiger of an economy (which is headed for a fall, say many forecasters...hope not), a thriving tourist industry and a military that would make Suleyman the Magnificent jealous.  An on its southern border Turkey nurses two recurring boils; Kurdistan and the civil war in Syria.  Although Erdogan has been willing to snuggle up to the Kurds for political expediency, I don't think he feels compelled to resolve the issue of Kurdistan at the moment.  Besides, the Kurds have proven to be reasonable.  The IS conflict, though, threatens to spill over into Turkey proper (not to mention the steady flow of refugees).  Surprisingly, the Turks have yet to really mobilize militarily.  What would happen if one of the combatants (count 'em again, folks: Al-Nusra Front, IS, Khorasan, Kurds, regular Syrian Army, and the free Syrian Army) began using Turkish territory as a staging point for military operations?  Unfortunately, I don't see Erdogan acting proactively in this situation.  He is content to let the circumstances come to him.