Most analysts and military strategists in the United States have focused on the activities of Daesh (Islamic State) in Syria and Iraq. After all, our equities appear to be most at risk in those two particular theaters. We have been conducting an Allied Air Campaign in both areas of conflict for roughly a year, and today, for the first time, we have learned exactly how aggressive this Air Campaign has been. The Allied Air Campaign (which includes the United States, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Bahrain) is averaging fourteen missions per day against Daesh targets. In comparison, the U.S. Air Force averaged 800 missions per day against Iraqi and insurgency targets in Operation Enduring Freedom. When questioned about the low number of missions, the Pentagon pointed out that the targets are more complicated, and the coalition is determined to avoid hitting civilian targets in error. I will leave that comment to stand on its own. Recently, Daesh has become more visible in its efforts to expand into other countries. Saudi Arabia has started to suffer from internal bombings conducting by Daesh operatives, and the presence of Daesh has been noted in Algeria, Mali, Libya, Egypt, Pakistan, Yemen, and Armenia (this includes countries with Islamic extremist groups who have declared their allegiance to Daesh). Currently, the Islamic State has the momentum in both Iraq and Syria. In fact, with only the remnants of the regime left to oppose their advance, Syria is beginning to look like a done deal, at least as far as Assad is concerned. Last week, Daesh operatives captured the Syrian/Iraqi border town of al-Tanf (al-Waleed in Iraq), which is a major victory for the extremist group. Controlling this entry point will allow Daesh to resupply its forces in Iraq more quickly, and vice versa. It solidifies their communication and transportation network between the two countries, and will undoubtedly bring more pressure on the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) in Anbar Province.
Outside of Saudi Arabia and a few isolated incidents in other countries, Daesh has yet to conduct a major operation in a theater other than Syria and Iraq....at least as far as we know. This group continues to impress with its planning and patience, and its ability to transform financial support into military equipment and supplies. No doubt its recent successes on the battlefield have increased the flow of volunteers. Last summer, when the United States appeared to be taking this threat seriously, there was hope that the Daesh movement would be limited to Iraq and Syria. But the organization has executed a much more successful military strategy than the United States and its allies. We celebrated when the Kurds won a few victories in northern Syria, and we rejoiced when the ISF recaptured Tikrit. But each minor Daesh setback was followed by a major military operation against weak targets. Although Ramadi wasn't thought to be a weak target. It became one when the ISF deserted its positions and equipment/vehicles, and left the people of Ramadi to fend for themselves. The example that the Iraqi Army continues to set (with the exception of a modest-sized number of well-trained, disciplined troops that get deployed whenever the government in Baghdad needs a headlining-grabbing victory somewhere) is only encouraging scores of Sunni in Anbar and elsewhere to back the winner, which at this stage is Daesh. Each little step east, closer to Baghdad, allows Daesh to seed Sunni communities with locals who have become supporters. No doubt, actual Daesh operatives are already in place in the bedroom communities of Baghdad.
From a larger perspective, the EU and the United States had better recognize the danger of Daesh "sightings" in Africa and in other Middle East countries. This extremist group is nothing like we have seen before, with the exception of the Taliban, on a much smaller scale. It has brought a conventional military capability to an extremist agenda. These groups feed off the poverty and misery of the third world to recruit and spread a message of hate and blame. Sadly, in 2015, they have no shortage of expansion opportunities. We have been concerned for some time with the activities of Al-Shabaab in East Africa, and the potential for recruitment in the townships of Kenya. There is no doubt that Al-Shabaab and Daesh are in regular communication, and that Daesh is already considering ways to tap into the mountain of discontent that exists in East African townships. Another troubling development is the easy manner in which Daesh seems to co-opt existing guerilla movements, sometimes even groups that are not Sunni in affiliation. One would have though that the mass executions and beheadings would have damaged the brand at least to some extent. But the reality is, at the end of the day, what really impresses is success, which at the moment, Daesh is enjoying in Spades. Anyone that is able to make the United States appear reactionary and unresolved will always attract a certain element of bad guys, but Daesh has managed to force the United States, Saudi Arabia, the EU, the Emirates, and even the Assad regime, stand behind the same target. As far as Daesh is concerned, they have one enemy that just happens to speak different languages and wear different uniforms. It would be in our best interest if we also adopted the same approach, instead of continuing with this obsession of separating the motivations of various extremist groups that all share the same goal: the expansion of Islamic extremism and the destruction of the western way of life.
Showing posts with label Qatar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Qatar. Show all posts
Thursday, May 28, 2015
Sunday, March 8, 2015
How effective are the Armed Forces of the Persian Gulf? (Part II)
Links A. Global Firepower Ranks the Armed Forces of the World
B. World's Largest Armies, According to Global Security
C. Business Insider's 35 Most Powerful Armies
I am fascinated by the Saudi Arabian Armed Forces. This is a lean, mean, fighting machine, and most people outside of the business of war, don't seem to have a clue. Since getting involved in two ill-advised wars against Israel, the Saudis have kept a very low military profile. The Saudi military was content to follow the U.S. lead in the first Gulf War, although Saudi units were in the thick of the fighting and acquitted themselves well (especially armor). The Royal Family, closely associated with every aspect of the military take full advantage of the situation to create a sense of patriotism that the Kingdom had never previously experienced. Saudi soldiers were welcomed home with parades and children waving that confusing green flag with the sword and all the spaghetti. The Saudi's have 315 front line M-1A2 Abrams heavy battle tanks ready at the drop of a pin, and 200 more in storage. If necessary (however unlikely), they have 290 French-made AMX-30s ready to go, which have been re-conditioned for desert warfare and is a tight little tank in its own right. The Saudi forces are more than adequate when it comes to artillery, both mobile and stationary, and if you recall, during the first Gulf War, Saddam Hussein started tossing some Scud missiles in the direction of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Since then, the Saudis have been determined to find a system similar to the Israeli "Dome", which blocks any incoming missiles. Until that technology becomes available to the Kingdom, they are more than sufficient with anti-missile and missile intercept systems. The Saudi ground forces are hardy and pride themselves on their regimen and training. The Air Force continues to fly U.S.-made F-15S bombers and F-15C fighters, but the mainstay of the Saudi fighter squadrons is the Typhoon Eurofighter. The purchase of the Eurofighter came as a bit of a surprise and involved some controversy with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who somehow was involved with negotiations. The U.S. had been hoping that the Saudi Air Force would upgrade to F-16s, F-18s, or possibly even F-35s. The Saudis can mobilize 250,000 troops in a matter of days. I read a news report recently which hypothesized that the Houthi issue in Yemen exposed a weakness in the Saudi military. In a way, the comment is accurate. If the Saudis wanted to military intervene in Yemen, I have no idea how they would pull that off. All of their armor is pointed in another direction, and PCS'd on the other side of the country. Fortunately, a handful of elderly Eastern European women with gas could wipe out the Houthis, so I don't think the Saudis really have much to worry about. I do think its a bit of a waste, the Saudi military being all shined up, trained, and ready to go, with the world's most modern equipment, but not having a war to fight. By the way, its important to remember that the stature of the military in the Kingdom has very little to do with any perceived threat from the outside. The impressiveness of the military is a direct reflection of the Royal family.
The military of the United Arab Emirates is similar in many ways to that of Saudi Arabia. Just to show off, lets name all seven of the Emirates: Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Fujairah, Umm al-Quwain, Sharjah, Ajman, and Ras al-Khaimah. The UAE is an amazing country and I highly recommend it to everyone except couples who like to kiss in public, and Gay folks. (Gay and like to kiss in public but want to stay in the Gulf? Try Oman.) The beaches are magnificent, the hotels and modern developments are awe-inspiring, the de-salinization plants are state-of-the-art, and the Russian prostitutes are everywhere....at least at night, in the lobbies of hotels. If you think you have seen wealth in Beverly Hills or the Hamptons, you haven't seen anything until you've visited Dubai. The Emiratis spend a great deal of money on the military and on the intelligence services. The UAE Air Force is exceptional. The government has approached this branch of the Armed Forces with a sense of import. Currently, the UAE flies roughly 60 recently refitted F-16S and 50 French Mirage 2000-9, which have also been refitted with the latest hardware. The Air Force has a superior support network and a budding Helicopter capability. The training is also exceptional, and the pilots have been receiving some valuable experience over the skies of Iraq and Syria, as part of the U.S. coalition of allies. In the late 1990s, the Emiratis chose a heavy battle tank other than the U.S.-offered Abrams. The UAE purchased 388 French-built Leclerc heavy battle tanks, which are, next to the Abrams, arguably the best heavy tank on the battlefield (I respect French military equipment...so shoot me). The Navy has 11 corvettes of three separate makes, all very fast and capable of offensive operations. The Navy lacks even one Frigate, which is probably a good thing...I can't imagine its use, in a coastline like the UAE's. Recently, the UAE has been focusing on fast attack craft and support vessels for naval operations. Overall, the navy meets all the requirements without really excelling in any particular area. The UAE does not expect to get invaded anytime soon, but the need to keep its heavy tanks in good performance order is essential. If Saudi Arabia suffers a border incursion of any kind (IS), the UAE will be determined to aid the Saudis as much as possible. Aside from the armor, the superior UAE Air Force will be welcome.
Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar shouldn't mind being thrown together into one paragraph. I'm sure its not the first time. Of the three smaller Gulf nations, Kuwait has the more prolific military. Following the first Gulf War, the Royal family was determined to put up a bit more of a resistance, should Saddam come knocking again. Even though the official statistics list the Kuwaiti army as having 11,000 soldiers, somehow they have managed to purchase over 200 U.S. 1-A2 Abrams tanks. to supplement the Abrams, Kuwait purchased 400 Humvees, roughly 100 self-propelled howitzers, over 200 anti-tank guided weapons, and, the cherry on the cake, 27 Russian-made BM-30 Smerch multiple launch rocket systems. Can they even fit all this shit into Kuwait? More reasonably, the Kuwaitis purchased 35 F-18 Hornets, along with multiple support aircraft, 18 Apache Attack Helicopters, and about 100 separate air defense system units (including SAM and the UK Starburst). Neither Qatar nor Bahrain pretend to have use for a major Armed Forces. Qatar does have 62 German-made Leopard tanks, which given the source are bound to be bad ass (and their reviews agree). Qatar relies on less than 20 French-made Mirages and a handful of older helicopters to round-out its Air Force. The standing army is somewhere near 13,000. Bahrain also has a small army, with no tanks (they used to have less than 100 M60s; current location, unknown). The Air Force is respectable, with 17 active and modern F-16s, and 4 squadrons (36 in total) of older attack helicopters. Both Qatar and Bahrain have sizeable and well-trained security services. If the U.S. or Saudi Arabia requested military assistance from Qatar and Bahrain, I see some useful Mirages and F-16s, possibly some attack helicopters, and 62 German Leopard heavy battle tanks. Both navies are negligible, although Bahrain is in possession of an older former U.S. Frigate and a handful of guided missile patrol craft.
Yemen is in a state of flux....the mechanism that controls the functions of state has yet to be determined for more than a few days at a time. The Yemeni military has collapsed and will have to be rebuilt. The Houthis are in hardly better shape. The last video I recall of Houthis celebrating in the streets included a man on a camel, carrying a musket that George Washington wouldn't have been seen with. I'm at a loss as to how these Houthi folks won out, although I suspect that they just waited longer. The real concern is for the well-being of the U.S. military (and clandestine/civilian) personnel still in country. Al-Qaeda is primed to take over, given that the U.S. military is exclusively limited to the use of Drones for offensive actions, and the Houthis don't seem to have much in the way of equipment. I thought the Iranians were trying to make some statement here? I say we take our young men and women out, and let Al-Qaeda or the Houthis have it. The Saudis will be forced to deal with the situation, and something tells me that they will make short-work of both the Houthis and Al-Qaeda. the Omani Air Force is a bit of a surprise, with 12 F/16C/D and 12 Eurofighter Typhoons on the way. 11 BAe 203 Hawks for ground attack, and lots of useful support elements. The Omani Army is built to suit its environment. The Royal Army still keeps 38 older Challenger British-made heavy tanks, but is focused more on a rapid-reply offensive capability. Somehow the Omanis came into possession of one (1) B1 Italian Centauro Monster with 120 mm weapon. More useful are the 175 Swiss-built Mowag Piranha armored fighting vehicles. The Royal Omani Navy is impressive, with five new Corvettes (2 built in 1994), 3 more ordered from BAe, 4 fast attack craft, 3 additional Al-Bushra French-made patrol craft, and an amphibious transport vessel. The Royal Omani Armed Forces have a very close relationship with both the United States and the United Kingdom, so security in Muscat is not an over-riding concern.
B. World's Largest Armies, According to Global Security
C. Business Insider's 35 Most Powerful Armies
I am fascinated by the Saudi Arabian Armed Forces. This is a lean, mean, fighting machine, and most people outside of the business of war, don't seem to have a clue. Since getting involved in two ill-advised wars against Israel, the Saudis have kept a very low military profile. The Saudi military was content to follow the U.S. lead in the first Gulf War, although Saudi units were in the thick of the fighting and acquitted themselves well (especially armor). The Royal Family, closely associated with every aspect of the military take full advantage of the situation to create a sense of patriotism that the Kingdom had never previously experienced. Saudi soldiers were welcomed home with parades and children waving that confusing green flag with the sword and all the spaghetti. The Saudi's have 315 front line M-1A2 Abrams heavy battle tanks ready at the drop of a pin, and 200 more in storage. If necessary (however unlikely), they have 290 French-made AMX-30s ready to go, which have been re-conditioned for desert warfare and is a tight little tank in its own right. The Saudi forces are more than adequate when it comes to artillery, both mobile and stationary, and if you recall, during the first Gulf War, Saddam Hussein started tossing some Scud missiles in the direction of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Since then, the Saudis have been determined to find a system similar to the Israeli "Dome", which blocks any incoming missiles. Until that technology becomes available to the Kingdom, they are more than sufficient with anti-missile and missile intercept systems. The Saudi ground forces are hardy and pride themselves on their regimen and training. The Air Force continues to fly U.S.-made F-15S bombers and F-15C fighters, but the mainstay of the Saudi fighter squadrons is the Typhoon Eurofighter. The purchase of the Eurofighter came as a bit of a surprise and involved some controversy with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who somehow was involved with negotiations. The U.S. had been hoping that the Saudi Air Force would upgrade to F-16s, F-18s, or possibly even F-35s. The Saudis can mobilize 250,000 troops in a matter of days. I read a news report recently which hypothesized that the Houthi issue in Yemen exposed a weakness in the Saudi military. In a way, the comment is accurate. If the Saudis wanted to military intervene in Yemen, I have no idea how they would pull that off. All of their armor is pointed in another direction, and PCS'd on the other side of the country. Fortunately, a handful of elderly Eastern European women with gas could wipe out the Houthis, so I don't think the Saudis really have much to worry about. I do think its a bit of a waste, the Saudi military being all shined up, trained, and ready to go, with the world's most modern equipment, but not having a war to fight. By the way, its important to remember that the stature of the military in the Kingdom has very little to do with any perceived threat from the outside. The impressiveness of the military is a direct reflection of the Royal family.
The military of the United Arab Emirates is similar in many ways to that of Saudi Arabia. Just to show off, lets name all seven of the Emirates: Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Fujairah, Umm al-Quwain, Sharjah, Ajman, and Ras al-Khaimah. The UAE is an amazing country and I highly recommend it to everyone except couples who like to kiss in public, and Gay folks. (Gay and like to kiss in public but want to stay in the Gulf? Try Oman.) The beaches are magnificent, the hotels and modern developments are awe-inspiring, the de-salinization plants are state-of-the-art, and the Russian prostitutes are everywhere....at least at night, in the lobbies of hotels. If you think you have seen wealth in Beverly Hills or the Hamptons, you haven't seen anything until you've visited Dubai. The Emiratis spend a great deal of money on the military and on the intelligence services. The UAE Air Force is exceptional. The government has approached this branch of the Armed Forces with a sense of import. Currently, the UAE flies roughly 60 recently refitted F-16S and 50 French Mirage 2000-9, which have also been refitted with the latest hardware. The Air Force has a superior support network and a budding Helicopter capability. The training is also exceptional, and the pilots have been receiving some valuable experience over the skies of Iraq and Syria, as part of the U.S. coalition of allies. In the late 1990s, the Emiratis chose a heavy battle tank other than the U.S.-offered Abrams. The UAE purchased 388 French-built Leclerc heavy battle tanks, which are, next to the Abrams, arguably the best heavy tank on the battlefield (I respect French military equipment...so shoot me). The Navy has 11 corvettes of three separate makes, all very fast and capable of offensive operations. The Navy lacks even one Frigate, which is probably a good thing...I can't imagine its use, in a coastline like the UAE's. Recently, the UAE has been focusing on fast attack craft and support vessels for naval operations. Overall, the navy meets all the requirements without really excelling in any particular area. The UAE does not expect to get invaded anytime soon, but the need to keep its heavy tanks in good performance order is essential. If Saudi Arabia suffers a border incursion of any kind (IS), the UAE will be determined to aid the Saudis as much as possible. Aside from the armor, the superior UAE Air Force will be welcome.
Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar shouldn't mind being thrown together into one paragraph. I'm sure its not the first time. Of the three smaller Gulf nations, Kuwait has the more prolific military. Following the first Gulf War, the Royal family was determined to put up a bit more of a resistance, should Saddam come knocking again. Even though the official statistics list the Kuwaiti army as having 11,000 soldiers, somehow they have managed to purchase over 200 U.S. 1-A2 Abrams tanks. to supplement the Abrams, Kuwait purchased 400 Humvees, roughly 100 self-propelled howitzers, over 200 anti-tank guided weapons, and, the cherry on the cake, 27 Russian-made BM-30 Smerch multiple launch rocket systems. Can they even fit all this shit into Kuwait? More reasonably, the Kuwaitis purchased 35 F-18 Hornets, along with multiple support aircraft, 18 Apache Attack Helicopters, and about 100 separate air defense system units (including SAM and the UK Starburst). Neither Qatar nor Bahrain pretend to have use for a major Armed Forces. Qatar does have 62 German-made Leopard tanks, which given the source are bound to be bad ass (and their reviews agree). Qatar relies on less than 20 French-made Mirages and a handful of older helicopters to round-out its Air Force. The standing army is somewhere near 13,000. Bahrain also has a small army, with no tanks (they used to have less than 100 M60s; current location, unknown). The Air Force is respectable, with 17 active and modern F-16s, and 4 squadrons (36 in total) of older attack helicopters. Both Qatar and Bahrain have sizeable and well-trained security services. If the U.S. or Saudi Arabia requested military assistance from Qatar and Bahrain, I see some useful Mirages and F-16s, possibly some attack helicopters, and 62 German Leopard heavy battle tanks. Both navies are negligible, although Bahrain is in possession of an older former U.S. Frigate and a handful of guided missile patrol craft.
Yemen is in a state of flux....the mechanism that controls the functions of state has yet to be determined for more than a few days at a time. The Yemeni military has collapsed and will have to be rebuilt. The Houthis are in hardly better shape. The last video I recall of Houthis celebrating in the streets included a man on a camel, carrying a musket that George Washington wouldn't have been seen with. I'm at a loss as to how these Houthi folks won out, although I suspect that they just waited longer. The real concern is for the well-being of the U.S. military (and clandestine/civilian) personnel still in country. Al-Qaeda is primed to take over, given that the U.S. military is exclusively limited to the use of Drones for offensive actions, and the Houthis don't seem to have much in the way of equipment. I thought the Iranians were trying to make some statement here? I say we take our young men and women out, and let Al-Qaeda or the Houthis have it. The Saudis will be forced to deal with the situation, and something tells me that they will make short-work of both the Houthis and Al-Qaeda. the Omani Air Force is a bit of a surprise, with 12 F/16C/D and 12 Eurofighter Typhoons on the way. 11 BAe 203 Hawks for ground attack, and lots of useful support elements. The Omani Army is built to suit its environment. The Royal Army still keeps 38 older Challenger British-made heavy tanks, but is focused more on a rapid-reply offensive capability. Somehow the Omanis came into possession of one (1) B1 Italian Centauro Monster with 120 mm weapon. More useful are the 175 Swiss-built Mowag Piranha armored fighting vehicles. The Royal Omani Navy is impressive, with five new Corvettes (2 built in 1994), 3 more ordered from BAe, 4 fast attack craft, 3 additional Al-Bushra French-made patrol craft, and an amphibious transport vessel. The Royal Omani Armed Forces have a very close relationship with both the United States and the United Kingdom, so security in Muscat is not an over-riding concern.
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
The War Against ISIL Is Being Lost While Obama Vacations...Again
Links: A. Iranian Militia-Leader Killed In Iraq
B. ISIL Retakes Baiji In Iraq
C. Russia Steps Up Involvement In Syria
I read in today's Washington Post that President Barrack Obama's favorability rating had improved up to 47 percent. I guess we should infer that the American people approve of the President acting unilaterally for the sole purpose of creating voters to support his political ideology. And, if the Amnesty issue wasn't irksome enough, Obama has decided (again, UNILATERALLY), to start the process of normalizing relations with Cuba. Obama announced this effort in his usual fashion. By declaring that the United States would be making all of the compromises and that in order to gain our friendship, Cuba would have to do....nothing. No, they were not required to release political prisoners, or legalize opposition parties, or end detention without trail. They weren't even asked to end their campaign of terror against U.S. citizens living in Florida who happen to oppose the Castro dictatorship. Obama makes two huge unilateral decisions and goes on vacation, and his approval jumps to 47 percent. Obviously he has this country figured out and I'm living in the past.
Lets cool off a bit by discussing the Islamic State (ISIL) and its offensives in both Syria and Iraq. Link C details very recent Russian efforts to get diplomatic traction in Syria. Not surprisingly, the EU bent over and greased up for Putin, I guess to reward him for not snatching another piece of Ukraine this week (I shouldn't complain....and least it was the EU and not Uncle Sam taking it south-ways this week). Putin's recent interest in Syria comes on the heels of recent unexpected military disasters for the regular Syrian Army in battles with ISIL. Remember, you heard it hear first (at least two months ago); Putin will not forsake Bashir al-Assad, at least not until he can replace him with another sycophant who will provide the Russian navy with a full-size (read: ballistic submarines) naval facility on Syria's Mediterranean Coast. What were John Kerry and the U.S. State Department doing while Putin was snuggling up to the EU? Probably smoking celebratory cigars with the Castro brothers. Since Obama enjoys adulation so much, I predict a trip to Havana is in the planning stages (again, remember you heard it here!). I wonder if he will think twice about the hundreds, maybe thousands of political prisoners that are rotting in Cuban jails without any kind of due process, some as young as thirteen years old. While Putin was re-establishing his Bona Fides vis-a-vis the Syrian conflict, the United States was continuing its illustrious Air Campaign against ISIL. In all honestly, the ineffectiveness of this military initiative has been a shock. Knowing the capabilities of the U.S. Air Force, I fully expected that ISIL would be suffering by now from supply problems. Our Air Force in Iraq and Afghanistan, using drones and ground troops to locate and verify targets, made it impossible for the enemy to move, let alone refuel, rearm and resupply. As I woke up this Sunday morning and read the news before Mass, I was reminded that ISIL has devastated regular Syrian Army positions in Eastern and Western Syria, and also retaken the town of Baiji, which was surrendered by the Iraqi Army without so much as fart in the direction of the enemy. But the Oil Refinery was heavily defended, which illustrates the priority of the Iraqi government. Let the people in Baiji get abused and in some cases, murdered by ISIL, as long as the money-maker keeps pumping.
Lately I've been very impressed with the willingness of the Iranians to take on ISIL in Iraq. The truth is, they recognize the threat that this group represents. Link A details the assassination of an important Iranian militia leader, who was active in Iraq's Diyala Province. Well, Diyala is in Eastern Iraq, just outside of Baghdad, and could not be more strategic. I was a bit perplexed by the number of individual Iranian-backed Shiite militias that were active in Iraq. These include, but are not limited to, the Mukhtar Army, Hezbollah Brigades (Hezbollah in Iraq, not Lebanon), Badr Brigades, Asaib al Haq, and something called the Peace Brigade. C'mon, Ayatollah whoever you are, don't you realize how much more effective to would be if you just merged these groups together? Each militia, fighting separately, with its own politically-focused leader, will have a miniscule impact on the conflict as opposed to what could be accomplished with one, well-equipped and properly led militia. At least the Iranians are recognizing the seriousness of the situation. The Iraqi Army cannot gain any traction. After publicizing the recapture of one or two towns, they pray that the local press won't also announced that four towns were occupied by ISIL during the same time period. Something tells me that the Iranians will be forced to launch a full-scale military intervention in Iraq. Its obviously something they would like to avoid, or at least delay until Obama finds a way to diplomatically allow them to enrich as much uranium as they want. Since Obama has been in office, the Iranians have moved closer and closer to complete independence for their nuclear program.
ISIL is on the offensive in Syria, and giving the Iraqi Army and the Iranian militias fits in Iraq. What about our bombing campaign? Where are the figures? I want to know how much ordinance has been expended and what the enemy has lost. You know the military has those figures at their fingertips. Normally I wouldn't care, but I'm trying to understand how a ragtag group of terrorists, totally without air support (except for a few drones, we're told), is moving around Iraq and Syria with impunity? How was ISIL able to reoccupy a town as large and strategic as Baiji, under the nose of the air coalition led by the United States Air Force, and including elements from France, Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE? Anyone? I don't see any slowdown in ISIL, so how about we save the U.S. taxpayer billions of dollars and just pull out? John Kerry should understand the policy. Its what he advocated for when he returned from Vietnam, remember?
On a separate note, I want to acknowledge all the media reports of Fidel Castro announcing Cuba's refusal to move one inch away from its Communist principles. I'm shocked that anyone would be surprised. Cuba isn't going to change, folks. What will happen, is a bunch of rich businessmen who donated money to Obama (and possibly Rand Paul as well), will build new, flashy resorts around the island, and make a ton of money. The Cuban elite will get their cut, the black market that runs the Cuban economy will get its due, and Obama's base will hail their icon as the man who saved the Cuban people (from the mean, ol' USA). Folks, the reality is, no one gives a shit about Cuba or the Cuban people. If Obama thought about Cuba even once while trotting from the sixth hole to the seventh, I will eat my hat. The goal isn't to change Cuba. ITS TO CHANGE THE UNITED STATES. More damage has been done to our Constitution in the last six years than has been done in the previous two hundred. This Imperial Administration is allowed to ignore an obvious electoral mandate, and just sideswipe Congress to enact monumental legislation. And the nut-less wonders Boehner and McConnell got over on us again, as nothing as yet to be even suggested in opposition to Obama's actions. Well, the GOP will have a nice surprise come 2016. I'm not sure about the Presidential Election, but conservative and moderate independent voters will either split the primary or not vote. The GOP rhinos have called the bluff of their own voters one too many times.
B. ISIL Retakes Baiji In Iraq
C. Russia Steps Up Involvement In Syria
I read in today's Washington Post that President Barrack Obama's favorability rating had improved up to 47 percent. I guess we should infer that the American people approve of the President acting unilaterally for the sole purpose of creating voters to support his political ideology. And, if the Amnesty issue wasn't irksome enough, Obama has decided (again, UNILATERALLY), to start the process of normalizing relations with Cuba. Obama announced this effort in his usual fashion. By declaring that the United States would be making all of the compromises and that in order to gain our friendship, Cuba would have to do....nothing. No, they were not required to release political prisoners, or legalize opposition parties, or end detention without trail. They weren't even asked to end their campaign of terror against U.S. citizens living in Florida who happen to oppose the Castro dictatorship. Obama makes two huge unilateral decisions and goes on vacation, and his approval jumps to 47 percent. Obviously he has this country figured out and I'm living in the past.
Lets cool off a bit by discussing the Islamic State (ISIL) and its offensives in both Syria and Iraq. Link C details very recent Russian efforts to get diplomatic traction in Syria. Not surprisingly, the EU bent over and greased up for Putin, I guess to reward him for not snatching another piece of Ukraine this week (I shouldn't complain....and least it was the EU and not Uncle Sam taking it south-ways this week). Putin's recent interest in Syria comes on the heels of recent unexpected military disasters for the regular Syrian Army in battles with ISIL. Remember, you heard it hear first (at least two months ago); Putin will not forsake Bashir al-Assad, at least not until he can replace him with another sycophant who will provide the Russian navy with a full-size (read: ballistic submarines) naval facility on Syria's Mediterranean Coast. What were John Kerry and the U.S. State Department doing while Putin was snuggling up to the EU? Probably smoking celebratory cigars with the Castro brothers. Since Obama enjoys adulation so much, I predict a trip to Havana is in the planning stages (again, remember you heard it here!). I wonder if he will think twice about the hundreds, maybe thousands of political prisoners that are rotting in Cuban jails without any kind of due process, some as young as thirteen years old. While Putin was re-establishing his Bona Fides vis-a-vis the Syrian conflict, the United States was continuing its illustrious Air Campaign against ISIL. In all honestly, the ineffectiveness of this military initiative has been a shock. Knowing the capabilities of the U.S. Air Force, I fully expected that ISIL would be suffering by now from supply problems. Our Air Force in Iraq and Afghanistan, using drones and ground troops to locate and verify targets, made it impossible for the enemy to move, let alone refuel, rearm and resupply. As I woke up this Sunday morning and read the news before Mass, I was reminded that ISIL has devastated regular Syrian Army positions in Eastern and Western Syria, and also retaken the town of Baiji, which was surrendered by the Iraqi Army without so much as fart in the direction of the enemy. But the Oil Refinery was heavily defended, which illustrates the priority of the Iraqi government. Let the people in Baiji get abused and in some cases, murdered by ISIL, as long as the money-maker keeps pumping.
Lately I've been very impressed with the willingness of the Iranians to take on ISIL in Iraq. The truth is, they recognize the threat that this group represents. Link A details the assassination of an important Iranian militia leader, who was active in Iraq's Diyala Province. Well, Diyala is in Eastern Iraq, just outside of Baghdad, and could not be more strategic. I was a bit perplexed by the number of individual Iranian-backed Shiite militias that were active in Iraq. These include, but are not limited to, the Mukhtar Army, Hezbollah Brigades (Hezbollah in Iraq, not Lebanon), Badr Brigades, Asaib al Haq, and something called the Peace Brigade. C'mon, Ayatollah whoever you are, don't you realize how much more effective to would be if you just merged these groups together? Each militia, fighting separately, with its own politically-focused leader, will have a miniscule impact on the conflict as opposed to what could be accomplished with one, well-equipped and properly led militia. At least the Iranians are recognizing the seriousness of the situation. The Iraqi Army cannot gain any traction. After publicizing the recapture of one or two towns, they pray that the local press won't also announced that four towns were occupied by ISIL during the same time period. Something tells me that the Iranians will be forced to launch a full-scale military intervention in Iraq. Its obviously something they would like to avoid, or at least delay until Obama finds a way to diplomatically allow them to enrich as much uranium as they want. Since Obama has been in office, the Iranians have moved closer and closer to complete independence for their nuclear program.
ISIL is on the offensive in Syria, and giving the Iraqi Army and the Iranian militias fits in Iraq. What about our bombing campaign? Where are the figures? I want to know how much ordinance has been expended and what the enemy has lost. You know the military has those figures at their fingertips. Normally I wouldn't care, but I'm trying to understand how a ragtag group of terrorists, totally without air support (except for a few drones, we're told), is moving around Iraq and Syria with impunity? How was ISIL able to reoccupy a town as large and strategic as Baiji, under the nose of the air coalition led by the United States Air Force, and including elements from France, Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE? Anyone? I don't see any slowdown in ISIL, so how about we save the U.S. taxpayer billions of dollars and just pull out? John Kerry should understand the policy. Its what he advocated for when he returned from Vietnam, remember?
On a separate note, I want to acknowledge all the media reports of Fidel Castro announcing Cuba's refusal to move one inch away from its Communist principles. I'm shocked that anyone would be surprised. Cuba isn't going to change, folks. What will happen, is a bunch of rich businessmen who donated money to Obama (and possibly Rand Paul as well), will build new, flashy resorts around the island, and make a ton of money. The Cuban elite will get their cut, the black market that runs the Cuban economy will get its due, and Obama's base will hail their icon as the man who saved the Cuban people (from the mean, ol' USA). Folks, the reality is, no one gives a shit about Cuba or the Cuban people. If Obama thought about Cuba even once while trotting from the sixth hole to the seventh, I will eat my hat. The goal isn't to change Cuba. ITS TO CHANGE THE UNITED STATES. More damage has been done to our Constitution in the last six years than has been done in the previous two hundred. This Imperial Administration is allowed to ignore an obvious electoral mandate, and just sideswipe Congress to enact monumental legislation. And the nut-less wonders Boehner and McConnell got over on us again, as nothing as yet to be even suggested in opposition to Obama's actions. Well, the GOP will have a nice surprise come 2016. I'm not sure about the Presidential Election, but conservative and moderate independent voters will either split the primary or not vote. The GOP rhinos have called the bluff of their own voters one too many times.
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
Extremists On The Offensive In Syria
Links: A. Al-Nusra Front, Ahrar al Sham Advance In Syria
B. Islamic State Advances On Deir al Zour
Lately I've had to come to grips with the fact that I was wrong regarding certain events in Syria. Last month I repeatedly raised expectations that forces loyal to de facto Syrian President Bashir al-Assad would have had the opportunity to refit and reorganize. I opined that Russian military aid would have allowed the Syrian Armed Forces to reconstitute its armor brigades and possibly rebuild the Syrian Air Force. The Allied air campaign should have occupied the Islamic State (ISIL) and the various other armed groups enough to allow the regular Syrian Army an opportunity to regain the strategic initiative, I hypothesized. It appears that I was mistaken. Even though in late November the international media printed a number of stories indicating a slow down in ISIL military advances, the reality is that the extremist groups were on the move just about everywhere.
For some reason, the press and media continue to separate the groups who make up the Islamic extremist element in Syria. Wasn't there a recognition in October that Al-Nusra, ISIL, Ahrar al Sham (and whoever else wants to throw their hat into the ring) are loyal to Al-Qaeda? And yet we continue to see Al-Nusra being given the mantle of "Al-Qaeda's representative in Syria", as if we are referring to a Lodge meeting in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Unless I see some usefulness in doing so, I will not refer to separate Islamic extremist factions in Syria. I have a good idea why the U.S. media (eager to do the bidding of this administration) continues to perpetrate the falsehood that their is some significant difference between these groups. Qatar (and possibly the UAE as well), who has a couple jets involved in the "anti-ISIS" air campaign, has been suspected of supporting some of these other groups in the past. Qatar wants to be seen as only bombing ISIL targets, because ISIL's message of an enlarged Caliphate is dangerous to the existing Gulf royal families. Qatar wants to continue its "clandestine" support for these other groups, though, so they will only participate in ther bombing of ISIL targets. If someone has evidence that Qatar and the UAE contingents in the air campaign have indeed participated in action against non-ISIL targets, please let me know. Actually, I'm not even sure of the United States is bombing non-ISIL targets (although you would think that "Al-Qaeda's representative in Syria" would be in line for some sort of attention).
What a mess. We can be certain of one thing: the regular Syrian forces have been taking a beating in the northwestern province of Idlib and eastern province of Deir al Zour. Interestingly enough, the extremists have been making effective use of American-made TOW anti-tank missiles in action against Syrian armor. Will I be the first to consider just how the TOW anti-tank missiles ended up the hands of the extremists? Were they originally the property of the Free Syrian Army that is being supported and armed by the United States? Assad can only be ringing his hands in despair as the U.S.-led air campaign seems to be having no impact on the Islamic extremists offensives against the few remaining government positions outside of Damascus. I'm one of those folks who likes to look at a big map and envision the various military elements and positions accordingly. I have spent a decent amount of time focusing on the regular Syrian Army, and I think I'm beginning to get a grasp on the three main groups that constitute the Islamic extremist forces. But I'm totally in the dark regarding the army that the United States government was planning on training in place of U.S. ground forces. Last summer we were told that the United States military would be training and equipping the "Free Syrian Army" (sometimes called the "New Syrian Army"). If my memory serves me correctly, this military force was led by a group of former regime officers who were both secular and opposed to Assad. Money was allotted for the training and equipping of this army, and I recall the Pentagon supposing that it would take somewhere around four months to stand-up the Free Syrian Army. In October, my understanding of the situation was shaken like an Etch-a-Sketch. The Pentagon released a statement declaring that the Free Syrian Army would be a force utilized for defensive operations only. Then a few days later, I recall news reports indicating that elements of the free Syrian Army had been involved in a battle with ISIS, and came away the worse for it. Was this a "defensive only" engagement?
If I could get the answers to a few simple questions, my understanding of the conflict would be increased measurably. What is the state of the Free Syrian Army? Does it exist, is it active, and will the Pentagon confirm its previous statement that the Free Syrian Army has definite rules of engagement that limit is capabilities to defensive action only? Is it true that the Qatari government requested rules of engagement for its contribution to the air campaign, which would exempt Qatari jets from bombing any targets other than ISIL? If so, does the UAE, Kuwait or Bahrain have the same prohibition sewn into their agreement to be part of the Allied air coalition? I can't help but feel a bit lost on the Syrian front. The last time I spent much time on this part of the map, the Kurds were besieged by ISIL in Kobane; has this situation in Kobane changed? Its true I have been keeping a closer eye on developments in Iraq, as the growing Iranian involvement has me reconsidering my prediction that Baghdad would eventually fall to ISIL. The Iranians have the capacity to defeat ISIL hands-down. At the same time, the Iranian government might decide to climb back into its hole and pull back its resources. When it comes to efforts to obtain weapons-grade Uranium, the Iranians are easy to predict. But when it comes to the deployment of its military, Iran can vacillate with the best of them.
B. Islamic State Advances On Deir al Zour
Lately I've had to come to grips with the fact that I was wrong regarding certain events in Syria. Last month I repeatedly raised expectations that forces loyal to de facto Syrian President Bashir al-Assad would have had the opportunity to refit and reorganize. I opined that Russian military aid would have allowed the Syrian Armed Forces to reconstitute its armor brigades and possibly rebuild the Syrian Air Force. The Allied air campaign should have occupied the Islamic State (ISIL) and the various other armed groups enough to allow the regular Syrian Army an opportunity to regain the strategic initiative, I hypothesized. It appears that I was mistaken. Even though in late November the international media printed a number of stories indicating a slow down in ISIL military advances, the reality is that the extremist groups were on the move just about everywhere.
For some reason, the press and media continue to separate the groups who make up the Islamic extremist element in Syria. Wasn't there a recognition in October that Al-Nusra, ISIL, Ahrar al Sham (and whoever else wants to throw their hat into the ring) are loyal to Al-Qaeda? And yet we continue to see Al-Nusra being given the mantle of "Al-Qaeda's representative in Syria", as if we are referring to a Lodge meeting in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Unless I see some usefulness in doing so, I will not refer to separate Islamic extremist factions in Syria. I have a good idea why the U.S. media (eager to do the bidding of this administration) continues to perpetrate the falsehood that their is some significant difference between these groups. Qatar (and possibly the UAE as well), who has a couple jets involved in the "anti-ISIS" air campaign, has been suspected of supporting some of these other groups in the past. Qatar wants to be seen as only bombing ISIL targets, because ISIL's message of an enlarged Caliphate is dangerous to the existing Gulf royal families. Qatar wants to continue its "clandestine" support for these other groups, though, so they will only participate in ther bombing of ISIL targets. If someone has evidence that Qatar and the UAE contingents in the air campaign have indeed participated in action against non-ISIL targets, please let me know. Actually, I'm not even sure of the United States is bombing non-ISIL targets (although you would think that "Al-Qaeda's representative in Syria" would be in line for some sort of attention).
What a mess. We can be certain of one thing: the regular Syrian forces have been taking a beating in the northwestern province of Idlib and eastern province of Deir al Zour. Interestingly enough, the extremists have been making effective use of American-made TOW anti-tank missiles in action against Syrian armor. Will I be the first to consider just how the TOW anti-tank missiles ended up the hands of the extremists? Were they originally the property of the Free Syrian Army that is being supported and armed by the United States? Assad can only be ringing his hands in despair as the U.S.-led air campaign seems to be having no impact on the Islamic extremists offensives against the few remaining government positions outside of Damascus. I'm one of those folks who likes to look at a big map and envision the various military elements and positions accordingly. I have spent a decent amount of time focusing on the regular Syrian Army, and I think I'm beginning to get a grasp on the three main groups that constitute the Islamic extremist forces. But I'm totally in the dark regarding the army that the United States government was planning on training in place of U.S. ground forces. Last summer we were told that the United States military would be training and equipping the "Free Syrian Army" (sometimes called the "New Syrian Army"). If my memory serves me correctly, this military force was led by a group of former regime officers who were both secular and opposed to Assad. Money was allotted for the training and equipping of this army, and I recall the Pentagon supposing that it would take somewhere around four months to stand-up the Free Syrian Army. In October, my understanding of the situation was shaken like an Etch-a-Sketch. The Pentagon released a statement declaring that the Free Syrian Army would be a force utilized for defensive operations only. Then a few days later, I recall news reports indicating that elements of the free Syrian Army had been involved in a battle with ISIS, and came away the worse for it. Was this a "defensive only" engagement?
If I could get the answers to a few simple questions, my understanding of the conflict would be increased measurably. What is the state of the Free Syrian Army? Does it exist, is it active, and will the Pentagon confirm its previous statement that the Free Syrian Army has definite rules of engagement that limit is capabilities to defensive action only? Is it true that the Qatari government requested rules of engagement for its contribution to the air campaign, which would exempt Qatari jets from bombing any targets other than ISIL? If so, does the UAE, Kuwait or Bahrain have the same prohibition sewn into their agreement to be part of the Allied air coalition? I can't help but feel a bit lost on the Syrian front. The last time I spent much time on this part of the map, the Kurds were besieged by ISIL in Kobane; has this situation in Kobane changed? Its true I have been keeping a closer eye on developments in Iraq, as the growing Iranian involvement has me reconsidering my prediction that Baghdad would eventually fall to ISIL. The Iranians have the capacity to defeat ISIL hands-down. At the same time, the Iranian government might decide to climb back into its hole and pull back its resources. When it comes to efforts to obtain weapons-grade Uranium, the Iranians are easy to predict. But when it comes to the deployment of its military, Iran can vacillate with the best of them.
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Who Are The Gulf States, Exactly?
Links: A. United Arab Emirates Wikipedia
B. Oman Wikipedia
C. Kuwait Wikipedia
D. Qatar Wikipedia
E. Bahrain Wikipedia
When I was a young boy, I was fascinated with maps. I spent hours trying to determine the methodology for the color-coding of different countries, and also did my best to learn the correct pronunciations of the countless rivers, mountains, towns, and cities. When I grew a little older, I became interested in history, so the Atlas section of my family's Encyclopedias got put down, and the Encyclopedias themselves got put to use. Not surprisingly, I gravitated towards some places more than others (it might be déjà vu, reincarnation, or it might be coincidence, but most people who look at maps and globes will feel an odd familiarity with certain place names). I was drawn to a political entity known as "The Trucial States". I counted seven oddly-shaped little places, all hugging the south shore of the Persian Gulf. In my mind's eye, I pictured camels, men in white, flowing robes with rope-ring head pieces to keep their head-covering on, tents, and sand......lots and lots of sand. This description wasn't far from the truth back in the 1930s and 1940s. As far a colonial influences go, the Persian Gulf was a British lake. Following the death of the Ottoman Empire in 1922, the British happily moved into the void.
In most of Great Britain's colonies, calls for independence put pressure on the British government to relinquish control to the indigenous peoples. In some countries, such as Kenya, Nigeria and Ghana, the process was observed internationally, and there was great optimism that the transition from one form of government to another, would go smoothly. Interestingly enough, the Trucial States were in no hurry to separate from great Britain. The importance of oil in the region was on everyone's mind, and the various Shaykhs of the Trucial States enjoyed having the protection of the British navy and Air Force. It was actually the British who insisted on the Declaration of Independence in 1971. The seven Trucial States, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Fujairah, Ajman, Sharjah, Um al-Quwain, and Ras al-Khaimah, each had its own Shaykh. Representatives from the seven Shaykhdoms met and decided to form a federation, which called itself the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Abu Dhabi and Dubai are larger in size and population than the other five Emirates, and there was some concern that the smaller Shaykhdoms might feel slighted because of the greater influence that Dubai and Abu Dhabi naturally possessed. But it never really has been a problem. The Emirates are incredibly wealthy, and the largesse has been distributed in a smart and effectual manner. The UAE has a surprisingly large and well-equipped Armed Forces (thank you, United States), and shares one common currency. Certain political positions are granted on a rotating basis, while others are voted upon. The leaders of the UAE have traditionally been from Abu Dhabi and Dubai, but they have done such a stellar
job negotiating the Emirates away from conflict and towards greater wealth, that no one dares complain. The UAE has become a popular tourist destination, especially for the British (just don't get caught kissing in public, especially if you are gay). The Emirates prides itself on having some of the tallest buildings in the world, including the astounding Burj Khalifa Tower in Dubai. The UAE can also be proud of its research and discoveries in desalinization. A great deal of Emirati wealth has found its way to the California real estate market, especially high-end shopping center projects. The current Prime Minister of the UAE, Mohammed bin Rashid al-Mahktoum, is a true lover of horse racing, and owns stables and breeding centers in Australia and the United States.
I love Oman. Of all the gulf States, and I include Saudi Arabia and Yemen in this instance, Oman, has managed to follow its own, independent course. Oman, which has a relatively small population, has extremely good relations with the west. Sultan Qaboos, who deposed his father in 1970 during what has been Oman's only internal conflict of the modern era, has not shown a fear of modern development, and welcomes tourists from Europe and the United States. The women of Oman do not suffer under the same prohibitions as exist in Saudi Arabia. The Omani Army is well-trained and equipped (mostly by the Brits), but for practical purposes is too small to be useful for anything other than self-defense and internal conflict. I have a personal affinity for Oman because it is an absolutely lovely place. Muscat, the capital city, is filled with buildings that could have
been plucked right out of the seventeenth century. The original Portuguese fort built in 1580 to guard the entrance to Muscat (Fort Al-Jalali) continues its timeless duty of protecting the Omanis from Pirates and other ne'er do wells. The Omani people are a pleasure to look at, and take great care in their appearance without obvious signs of vanity. Qaboos has been a loyal friend to the United States and western Europe since he first sat on the throne. I'm sure at one time or another, extremists have attempted to set-up shop in Oman. But I guessing that they didn't make much progress, as the people seem very loyal to their sovereign and content with their lives.
Kuwait reminds me of the opposite of Oman in many ways. Although the Al-Sabah family keeps a tight grip on power, the political environment in Kuwait has become much noisier as of late. The Sabahs have to contend with a very vocal women's right lobby and a population that at times appears sympathetic to Islamic extremist groups. Was it that long ago that Saddam Hussein's Army poured into Kuwait, emptied the stores and dumped babies out of incubators? A Kuwaiti friend of mine explained why a segment of the population of Kuwait has become sympathetic to the jihadis. From 1990 to the present, the United States military has had a large presence in Kuwait. Many Kuwaitis are not happy with the inevitable influence that this group of young Americans has had on their country. This includes the relaxation of attitudes regarding liquor consumption, the fraternization between Kuwaiti women and U.S. servicemen, and the unavoidable evolution of the Kuwaiti economy to accommodate all those U.S. dollars. Another unintended result of the U.S. presence is the perceived growth of the Christian community and the movement away from the teachings of Islam. A not insignificant percentage of native-born Kuwaitis are convinced that Kuwait needs to embrace a traditional brand of Islam that will remove the Game Boys, the mini-skirts and the six packs of Budweiser. It is rumored that a well-placed member of the Sabahs is very sympathetic towards conservative Islam and is working hard to influence his family. Help may be on the way. Its my understanding that the draw-down of U.S. military forces overseas includes most of our Army facilities in Kuwait.
Forgive me for including Qatar and Bahrain in the same paragraph. It's a bad habit that is shared by many. Qatar is a small but very wealthy country that borders Saudi Arabia on the west and the Perisan Gulf on the east. The Qataris have the highest per capita income in the world (according to Wikipedia), and Qatar itself has over 100 billion dollars in investments worldwide. Each year those investments grow from 30 to 40 billion dollars. The Qatari government, ostensibly loyal to Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani, has been accused of supporting extremist causes, including Hamas. The Qataris deny supporting any extremist groups in Gaza, Lebanon or the West Bank, but Qatar readily admits to supporting the Palestinian people. With regards to Syria, Qatar has been supporting various factions opposed to Syrian President Bashir al-Assad. In fact, Qatar is one of the nations included in President Obama's anti-ISIS air campaign coalition. I'm still trying to determine who exactly were the Qataris supporting before the air campaign? At first glance, it would appear that the Qataris were supporting ISIS, a claim which they deny. If Qatar was not supporting Assad, then who on the rebel side was receiving funding from Qatar? Sadly, the five Guantanamo-based terrorists that Barrack Obama traded for the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl were deposited in Qatar, with the understanding that the Qataris would keep them under thumb. Fat chance....its my understanding that at least two have already rejoined the struggle against "The Great Satan". We don't have much to say about Bahrain. In 2011, the ruling al-Khalifa house was given quite a scare with the almost spontaneous demonstrations in the capital city Manama. Eventually the police and riot control units were mobilized to disperse the crowds and they seemed to disappear as quickly as they assembled, although some human rights organizations claim that whenever people congregate in the same fashion, the police move in quickly. Half of Bahrain's 1.2 million population are working foreigners. Bahrain has a strong economy, built on oil just like its fellow Gulf States. Bahrain has arguably the closest relationship with the United States, as the U.S. Navy has a base in Bahrain and the U.S. military trains and equips the Bahraini military. Recently tensions arose between Qatar and Bahrain which resulted in the recalling of ambassadors; but that issue appears to have since resolved itself, and diplomatic personnel have returned to their jobs.
B. Oman Wikipedia
C. Kuwait Wikipedia
D. Qatar Wikipedia
E. Bahrain Wikipedia
When I was a young boy, I was fascinated with maps. I spent hours trying to determine the methodology for the color-coding of different countries, and also did my best to learn the correct pronunciations of the countless rivers, mountains, towns, and cities. When I grew a little older, I became interested in history, so the Atlas section of my family's Encyclopedias got put down, and the Encyclopedias themselves got put to use. Not surprisingly, I gravitated towards some places more than others (it might be déjà vu, reincarnation, or it might be coincidence, but most people who look at maps and globes will feel an odd familiarity with certain place names). I was drawn to a political entity known as "The Trucial States". I counted seven oddly-shaped little places, all hugging the south shore of the Persian Gulf. In my mind's eye, I pictured camels, men in white, flowing robes with rope-ring head pieces to keep their head-covering on, tents, and sand......lots and lots of sand. This description wasn't far from the truth back in the 1930s and 1940s. As far a colonial influences go, the Persian Gulf was a British lake. Following the death of the Ottoman Empire in 1922, the British happily moved into the void.
In most of Great Britain's colonies, calls for independence put pressure on the British government to relinquish control to the indigenous peoples. In some countries, such as Kenya, Nigeria and Ghana, the process was observed internationally, and there was great optimism that the transition from one form of government to another, would go smoothly. Interestingly enough, the Trucial States were in no hurry to separate from great Britain. The importance of oil in the region was on everyone's mind, and the various Shaykhs of the Trucial States enjoyed having the protection of the British navy and Air Force. It was actually the British who insisted on the Declaration of Independence in 1971. The seven Trucial States, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Fujairah, Ajman, Sharjah, Um al-Quwain, and Ras al-Khaimah, each had its own Shaykh. Representatives from the seven Shaykhdoms met and decided to form a federation, which called itself the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Abu Dhabi and Dubai are larger in size and population than the other five Emirates, and there was some concern that the smaller Shaykhdoms might feel slighted because of the greater influence that Dubai and Abu Dhabi naturally possessed. But it never really has been a problem. The Emirates are incredibly wealthy, and the largesse has been distributed in a smart and effectual manner. The UAE has a surprisingly large and well-equipped Armed Forces (thank you, United States), and shares one common currency. Certain political positions are granted on a rotating basis, while others are voted upon. The leaders of the UAE have traditionally been from Abu Dhabi and Dubai, but they have done such a stellar
 |
| Burj Khalifa Tower, Dubai |
I love Oman. Of all the gulf States, and I include Saudi Arabia and Yemen in this instance, Oman, has managed to follow its own, independent course. Oman, which has a relatively small population, has extremely good relations with the west. Sultan Qaboos, who deposed his father in 1970 during what has been Oman's only internal conflict of the modern era, has not shown a fear of modern development, and welcomes tourists from Europe and the United States. The women of Oman do not suffer under the same prohibitions as exist in Saudi Arabia. The Omani Army is well-trained and equipped (mostly by the Brits), but for practical purposes is too small to be useful for anything other than self-defense and internal conflict. I have a personal affinity for Oman because it is an absolutely lovely place. Muscat, the capital city, is filled with buildings that could have
.jpg) |
| Fort Al-Jalali, Muscat, Oman |
Kuwait reminds me of the opposite of Oman in many ways. Although the Al-Sabah family keeps a tight grip on power, the political environment in Kuwait has become much noisier as of late. The Sabahs have to contend with a very vocal women's right lobby and a population that at times appears sympathetic to Islamic extremist groups. Was it that long ago that Saddam Hussein's Army poured into Kuwait, emptied the stores and dumped babies out of incubators? A Kuwaiti friend of mine explained why a segment of the population of Kuwait has become sympathetic to the jihadis. From 1990 to the present, the United States military has had a large presence in Kuwait. Many Kuwaitis are not happy with the inevitable influence that this group of young Americans has had on their country. This includes the relaxation of attitudes regarding liquor consumption, the fraternization between Kuwaiti women and U.S. servicemen, and the unavoidable evolution of the Kuwaiti economy to accommodate all those U.S. dollars. Another unintended result of the U.S. presence is the perceived growth of the Christian community and the movement away from the teachings of Islam. A not insignificant percentage of native-born Kuwaitis are convinced that Kuwait needs to embrace a traditional brand of Islam that will remove the Game Boys, the mini-skirts and the six packs of Budweiser. It is rumored that a well-placed member of the Sabahs is very sympathetic towards conservative Islam and is working hard to influence his family. Help may be on the way. Its my understanding that the draw-down of U.S. military forces overseas includes most of our Army facilities in Kuwait.
Forgive me for including Qatar and Bahrain in the same paragraph. It's a bad habit that is shared by many. Qatar is a small but very wealthy country that borders Saudi Arabia on the west and the Perisan Gulf on the east. The Qataris have the highest per capita income in the world (according to Wikipedia), and Qatar itself has over 100 billion dollars in investments worldwide. Each year those investments grow from 30 to 40 billion dollars. The Qatari government, ostensibly loyal to Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani, has been accused of supporting extremist causes, including Hamas. The Qataris deny supporting any extremist groups in Gaza, Lebanon or the West Bank, but Qatar readily admits to supporting the Palestinian people. With regards to Syria, Qatar has been supporting various factions opposed to Syrian President Bashir al-Assad. In fact, Qatar is one of the nations included in President Obama's anti-ISIS air campaign coalition. I'm still trying to determine who exactly were the Qataris supporting before the air campaign? At first glance, it would appear that the Qataris were supporting ISIS, a claim which they deny. If Qatar was not supporting Assad, then who on the rebel side was receiving funding from Qatar? Sadly, the five Guantanamo-based terrorists that Barrack Obama traded for the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl were deposited in Qatar, with the understanding that the Qataris would keep them under thumb. Fat chance....its my understanding that at least two have already rejoined the struggle against "The Great Satan". We don't have much to say about Bahrain. In 2011, the ruling al-Khalifa house was given quite a scare with the almost spontaneous demonstrations in the capital city Manama. Eventually the police and riot control units were mobilized to disperse the crowds and they seemed to disappear as quickly as they assembled, although some human rights organizations claim that whenever people congregate in the same fashion, the police move in quickly. Half of Bahrain's 1.2 million population are working foreigners. Bahrain has a strong economy, built on oil just like its fellow Gulf States. Bahrain has arguably the closest relationship with the United States, as the U.S. Navy has a base in Bahrain and the U.S. military trains and equips the Bahraini military. Recently tensions arose between Qatar and Bahrain which resulted in the recalling of ambassadors; but that issue appears to have since resolved itself, and diplomatic personnel have returned to their jobs.
Friday, October 24, 2014
U.S. Will Train New Syrian Army For Defense, No Offense
Links: A. U.S. To Train Syrians To Defend Territory
B. Lots Of Terrorist Training Camps In Iraq And Syria
C. Al-Qaeda Reborn On The Indian Subcontinent
As I've said before, the first thing I do in the morning when I wake up is read the Long War Journal. Previously I couldn't leave the house without a quick look at the Drudgereport. Now I have doubled my morning reading selection. To put it bluntly, the Long War Journal (LWJ) is in a class by itself. I am so impressed with the real-time nature of the reporting, not to mention the amazing breadth of coverage. Let me step away from brown-nosing the LWJ just long enough to get angry all over again. According to the Stars and Stripes (see ref A), the surrogate New Syrian Army that was going to represent the good guys in the ground war against the Islamic Front (IS), will only be trained to defend territory. They will not be trained or ordered to take any territory. The first problem that jumped out at me is that we are still talking in "future" terms. The New Syrian Army "WILL" only be trained to defend. Are we to believe that the training of our surrogate saviors hasn't even started? Aren't we already over a month into the air campaign? The second, and much more disturbing bit of news from Stars and Stripes, is that when we finally get started with the training, it will consist exclusively of defensive warfare. And what if, by the time our New Syrian Army is ready for battle, the IS has already occupied ninety percent of Syria. I assume they will be content to just IGNORE the "defense only" New Syrian Army, who won't be able to attack unless someone attacks them? If this development weren't so desperate and dangerous, it would be hilarious. How can the military brass just accept these kind of "political" intrusions into military strategy? Is there anyone at the Pentagon who is old enough to remember Vietnam? DEFEND ONLY doesn't work in warfare, especially against an enemy like this. Why would the Obama Administration adopt this approach? Are they concerned about killing IS operatives? After the last week of bombing at Kobani it would seem as if they don't mind killing the bad guys one bit. So why are we going to spend billions of dollars training an Army for the sole purpose of "defense"?
Ref B should also come as no surprise. The IS has occupied huge swaths of territory in eastern Syria and Western Iraq. I'm a bit surprised that with at least five coalition Air Forces in the area (maybe only four; I keep adding the Brits out of habit), anything is able to move in the desert without getting blown to bits. Even with a daily dose of Stars and Stripes and LWJ, I'm still totally confused about the organization of the air campaign. What I do know is that the U.S. and France are willing and able to deploy over both Syria and Iraq. Now here is where things get cloudy. The Qatari and Emirati Air Forces, flying the shiniest and newest F16s, seem to pick and chose when they get involved. They are willing to bomb some folks, but not bomb others. Something smells rotten here (which is no surprise, since deodorant is definitely optional in this part of the world). Since when does a military coalition partner turn in a list of "folks we will bomb", and "folks we won't"? Being the brilliantly suspicious asshole that I am, something tells me that both the Qataris and Emiratis are sympathetic to certain terrorist groups active in Syria. Qatar's thinly-veiled support for Islamic Extremist groups is not a news flash (I'm sure glad we didn't deliver those five Guantanamo residents we traded for Bergdahl to a place like Qatar), but the Emiratis are usually much more discrete. Either way, it may explain why the bad guys are able to open numerous training camps right under the eyes of our spy satellites.
Ref C is the least interesting of Thursday's "multiple Links" night. It probably comes as no surprise to my well-read readers that Al-Qaeda (AQ) has found ripe fruit to pick amongst the one hundred thirty-three million mostly poor, Muslims of India. Regardless of which party is in power in India, religious tension always seems to be boiling just below the surface. I thought that the Congress Party, under the direction of Sonia Ghandi and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, would make a sincere effort to address some of the many legitimate grievances of the Muslim community, but it didn't happen. Excuse the cliché, but India truly is like an Onion. Once you peel it, you have another layer, and then another, and another....India is a nation built upon one set of hierarchies after another. Addressing the grievances of the Muslim community will probably result in the continuation of bigotry in another part of Indian society. Be that at is may, Osama bin-Laden recognized the opportunity to recruit and cause trouble here, and AQ has been a stealth presence in Muslim India for years. The attention focused on AQ on the Indian subcontinent comes as AQ releases its newest online magazine, the English-language "Resurgence". I've seen photos of the cover of the magazine and the insides, and it has an appealing, colorful modern look to it. Then you read the articles. Most of the magazine focuses on the Indian subcontinent, with writers offering explanation for the AQ plan to hijack Pakistani naval vessels. The hijacked vessels were supposed to attack the U.S. Navy warships, but the plan never got off of the ground. I don't understand why AQ has always persisted in offering explanations for its actions. AQ despises the United States and the way Americans live their lives. AQ also resents the influence and the presence of the United States around the world, financially, militarily and diplomatically. I think that covers it. "Resurgence" does include a very interesting article (with a nice graphic) on what targets would cause the most damage to American interests. They conclude that disrupting the flow of oil would be the most effective way to hurt the U.S. Obviously they have some real deep thinkers over there at AQ University. Back on the subcontinent, the potential is great for an escalation of AQ-sponsored violence. In fact, its inevitable. India has an effective, well-run internal law enforcement agency (the Central Bureau of Investigation - CBI), and I would not envy any Indian AQ members who get picked up by the CBI. If AQ orchestrates a large-scale attack, the Indian police will lock-up first and ask questions later. India has a relatively new government and it will be very interesting to observe how the New Democratic Alliance (NDA) (basically the BJP and a handful of like-minded parties) approaches this issue, and how they respond to the inevitable AQ attack.
B. Lots Of Terrorist Training Camps In Iraq And Syria
C. Al-Qaeda Reborn On The Indian Subcontinent
As I've said before, the first thing I do in the morning when I wake up is read the Long War Journal. Previously I couldn't leave the house without a quick look at the Drudgereport. Now I have doubled my morning reading selection. To put it bluntly, the Long War Journal (LWJ) is in a class by itself. I am so impressed with the real-time nature of the reporting, not to mention the amazing breadth of coverage. Let me step away from brown-nosing the LWJ just long enough to get angry all over again. According to the Stars and Stripes (see ref A), the surrogate New Syrian Army that was going to represent the good guys in the ground war against the Islamic Front (IS), will only be trained to defend territory. They will not be trained or ordered to take any territory. The first problem that jumped out at me is that we are still talking in "future" terms. The New Syrian Army "WILL" only be trained to defend. Are we to believe that the training of our surrogate saviors hasn't even started? Aren't we already over a month into the air campaign? The second, and much more disturbing bit of news from Stars and Stripes, is that when we finally get started with the training, it will consist exclusively of defensive warfare. And what if, by the time our New Syrian Army is ready for battle, the IS has already occupied ninety percent of Syria. I assume they will be content to just IGNORE the "defense only" New Syrian Army, who won't be able to attack unless someone attacks them? If this development weren't so desperate and dangerous, it would be hilarious. How can the military brass just accept these kind of "political" intrusions into military strategy? Is there anyone at the Pentagon who is old enough to remember Vietnam? DEFEND ONLY doesn't work in warfare, especially against an enemy like this. Why would the Obama Administration adopt this approach? Are they concerned about killing IS operatives? After the last week of bombing at Kobani it would seem as if they don't mind killing the bad guys one bit. So why are we going to spend billions of dollars training an Army for the sole purpose of "defense"?
Ref B should also come as no surprise. The IS has occupied huge swaths of territory in eastern Syria and Western Iraq. I'm a bit surprised that with at least five coalition Air Forces in the area (maybe only four; I keep adding the Brits out of habit), anything is able to move in the desert without getting blown to bits. Even with a daily dose of Stars and Stripes and LWJ, I'm still totally confused about the organization of the air campaign. What I do know is that the U.S. and France are willing and able to deploy over both Syria and Iraq. Now here is where things get cloudy. The Qatari and Emirati Air Forces, flying the shiniest and newest F16s, seem to pick and chose when they get involved. They are willing to bomb some folks, but not bomb others. Something smells rotten here (which is no surprise, since deodorant is definitely optional in this part of the world). Since when does a military coalition partner turn in a list of "folks we will bomb", and "folks we won't"? Being the brilliantly suspicious asshole that I am, something tells me that both the Qataris and Emiratis are sympathetic to certain terrorist groups active in Syria. Qatar's thinly-veiled support for Islamic Extremist groups is not a news flash (I'm sure glad we didn't deliver those five Guantanamo residents we traded for Bergdahl to a place like Qatar), but the Emiratis are usually much more discrete. Either way, it may explain why the bad guys are able to open numerous training camps right under the eyes of our spy satellites.
Ref C is the least interesting of Thursday's "multiple Links" night. It probably comes as no surprise to my well-read readers that Al-Qaeda (AQ) has found ripe fruit to pick amongst the one hundred thirty-three million mostly poor, Muslims of India. Regardless of which party is in power in India, religious tension always seems to be boiling just below the surface. I thought that the Congress Party, under the direction of Sonia Ghandi and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, would make a sincere effort to address some of the many legitimate grievances of the Muslim community, but it didn't happen. Excuse the cliché, but India truly is like an Onion. Once you peel it, you have another layer, and then another, and another....India is a nation built upon one set of hierarchies after another. Addressing the grievances of the Muslim community will probably result in the continuation of bigotry in another part of Indian society. Be that at is may, Osama bin-Laden recognized the opportunity to recruit and cause trouble here, and AQ has been a stealth presence in Muslim India for years. The attention focused on AQ on the Indian subcontinent comes as AQ releases its newest online magazine, the English-language "Resurgence". I've seen photos of the cover of the magazine and the insides, and it has an appealing, colorful modern look to it. Then you read the articles. Most of the magazine focuses on the Indian subcontinent, with writers offering explanation for the AQ plan to hijack Pakistani naval vessels. The hijacked vessels were supposed to attack the U.S. Navy warships, but the plan never got off of the ground. I don't understand why AQ has always persisted in offering explanations for its actions. AQ despises the United States and the way Americans live their lives. AQ also resents the influence and the presence of the United States around the world, financially, militarily and diplomatically. I think that covers it. "Resurgence" does include a very interesting article (with a nice graphic) on what targets would cause the most damage to American interests. They conclude that disrupting the flow of oil would be the most effective way to hurt the U.S. Obviously they have some real deep thinkers over there at AQ University. Back on the subcontinent, the potential is great for an escalation of AQ-sponsored violence. In fact, its inevitable. India has an effective, well-run internal law enforcement agency (the Central Bureau of Investigation - CBI), and I would not envy any Indian AQ members who get picked up by the CBI. If AQ orchestrates a large-scale attack, the Indian police will lock-up first and ask questions later. India has a relatively new government and it will be very interesting to observe how the New Democratic Alliance (NDA) (basically the BJP and a handful of like-minded parties) approaches this issue, and how they respond to the inevitable AQ attack.
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Does Khorasan Exist? Does It Really Matter?
Link: Is There An Actual Group Calling Itself Khorasan In Syria/Iraq?
Wikipedia Definition Of Khorasan
Well, I certainly didn't see this coming. According to Andrew C. McCarthy and National Review, no group calling itself "Khorasan" exists. Andrew boldly accuses the Obama Administration of inventing Khorasan to provide an enemy with an unknown wrap sheet; a target that exemplifies the threat as the Administration wants it to appear. This astounding accusation has taken me by complete surprise. The commentary is not lengthy but still manages to provide a disturbing amount of supporting evidence. McCarthy alleges that last week's bombing targets were in fact "Al-Nusra Front" locations as opposed to Khorasan. Last week I argued that we needed to avoid getting caught in the weeds with all the various branches and groups of Islamic extremists. I remain convinced that sunni groups with extremist religious affiliations are connected. McCarthy believes that the Administration is disseminating the incorrect idea that Iraq, Syria, and the Near East in general are home to dozens of separate and distinct Sunni extremist groups ("Jabhat al-Nusrsa", "Al-Qaeda in al-Sharm", "Al-Qaeda in -Magreb", "Al-Qaeda on the Indian Sub-Continent", "Al-Qaeda in Yemen", and on and on) who don't coordinate their activities. During the 2012 presidential election campaign, President Obama made great hay from the death of bin-Laden and the apparent crippling of Al-Qaeda. This narrative supported other pillars of his foreign policy. The enemy is splintered into a herd of squabbling, locally focused, unprofessional groups. The U.S. military is no longer needed in Iraq or Afghanistan if Al-Qaeda is toast. The reality is that we evacuated Iraq at a record-setting pace as our enemies, not fifteen or twenty feuding, distinct organizations but a handful of groups united under one cause, rested and watching.
Andrew managed to squeeze a ton of information and argument into a two-page commentary. I tried to summarize it in the previous paragraph, and I fear I have not succeeded. The first link is Andrew McCarthy's actual National Review piece. I'll do everything I can to disseminate this commentary in social media because I believe it to be incredibly insightful. The key to winning a war begins with knowing your enemy. Right now we seem to be a bit confused on the matter. Why did coalition air elements avoid all of the targets identified as "Khorasan" (U.S. jets only, no Qatari or Saudi jets, bombed Khorasan targets)? Is it because Khorasan is actually the Al-Nusra Front, and our allies Qatar and Saudi Arabia support Al-Nusra's efforts to topple Assad in Syria? Again, it brings me back to something we discussed last week. The United States (note that I did not say "The Coalition") must have solid intelligence regarding the players in Syria and who they represent. If we truly intend to build and equip an army to tackle the Islamic State on the ground, will a U.S. Officer be in command (at a distance, maybe offshore on an aircraft carrier, so his boots aren't on the ground)? Without that type of hands-on discipline and authority, how can we expect this Army to do our bidding? Occasionally I'm overwhelmed by this nightmare scenario of the New Syrian Army, weapons et al, deserting to the IS immediately upon completion of training. Without troops, how can we prevent something like this taking place? The burr in my saddle has to do with what becomes of the New Syrian Army after the job is done. Will they turn on Assad and the regular Syrian Army? you can bet your ass they will, and then the Russians jump into the picture.
I agree with McCarthy's assessment, but I'm not part of the "told ya so" crowd. I want the IS wiped from the face of the planet and I want the Obama Administration to accomplish this task and add to his legacy. I don't believe that the religious extremist terrorist groups are separate, distinct entities that seldom communicate. I believe the network of cooperation and communication is similar to organized crime. The goal of keeping numerous small units out in the field confuses the enemy and allows for wider access. If a former British soldier with highly specialized explosives training is recruited on the streets of Ipswich or York or Harrogate, he will not end up swatting flies out in the middle of the Syrian desert. He will be utilized to train operatives heading out into the field. The communication network that the extremist community has created is probably impossible to destroy completely (especially in the UK). We can hope to intercept calls, steal transmissions, and even occasionally bug the correct phone, but the only real way to listen in on the bad guys is through recruited assets. We are still living in the world dominated by human intelligence (eventually it probably will be run by artificial intelligence, but who am I, Stanley Kubrick?), so lets hope that our Intelligence Organizations are having success penetrating this monster.
When I read "Vengeance: The true Story Of An Israeli Counter Terrorist Team", by George Jonas, I picked up a tremendous amount of useful information regarding Terrorist Cells in the 1960s and 1970s. What is most fascinating is that the bad guys still do things the same way. Old habits are hard to break, says the old cliché. Reading this book I learned that the German Terrorist Cell the "Baader-Meinhof Group" had direct contact with Palestinian and Japanese terrorists. There is no doubt in my mind that the terrorist groups active in Syria and Iraq are bonded to each other through agenda and necessity....and hatred for the enemy. I do not support the plan to create a surrogate army to fight the ground campaign against the IS, but since we appear to be committed to that plan, then I want it to succeed 100 percent. Although we can't have U.S. soldiers of any rank on the front lines with the new Syrian Army we are training, I hope we will be able to direct their movement from a centralized location, i.e. offshore or from a nearby friendly country. Giving authority to make strategic decisions to Officers within the New Syrian Army would be a mistake until they have proven that they won't immediately about-face on the battlefield and head to Damascus to settle old scores with Bashir. We will not succeed until this coalition, and the United States diplomatic, intelligence and military elements in particular, accept the fact that we are truly facing only one enemy. That enemy will grow stronger each time we use foreign affairs to score political points, as the minority Republicans are want to do at the moment. National Security MUST trump all of that bullshit.
Wikipedia Definition Of Khorasan
Well, I certainly didn't see this coming. According to Andrew C. McCarthy and National Review, no group calling itself "Khorasan" exists. Andrew boldly accuses the Obama Administration of inventing Khorasan to provide an enemy with an unknown wrap sheet; a target that exemplifies the threat as the Administration wants it to appear. This astounding accusation has taken me by complete surprise. The commentary is not lengthy but still manages to provide a disturbing amount of supporting evidence. McCarthy alleges that last week's bombing targets were in fact "Al-Nusra Front" locations as opposed to Khorasan. Last week I argued that we needed to avoid getting caught in the weeds with all the various branches and groups of Islamic extremists. I remain convinced that sunni groups with extremist religious affiliations are connected. McCarthy believes that the Administration is disseminating the incorrect idea that Iraq, Syria, and the Near East in general are home to dozens of separate and distinct Sunni extremist groups ("Jabhat al-Nusrsa", "Al-Qaeda in al-Sharm", "Al-Qaeda in -Magreb", "Al-Qaeda on the Indian Sub-Continent", "Al-Qaeda in Yemen", and on and on) who don't coordinate their activities. During the 2012 presidential election campaign, President Obama made great hay from the death of bin-Laden and the apparent crippling of Al-Qaeda. This narrative supported other pillars of his foreign policy. The enemy is splintered into a herd of squabbling, locally focused, unprofessional groups. The U.S. military is no longer needed in Iraq or Afghanistan if Al-Qaeda is toast. The reality is that we evacuated Iraq at a record-setting pace as our enemies, not fifteen or twenty feuding, distinct organizations but a handful of groups united under one cause, rested and watching.
Andrew managed to squeeze a ton of information and argument into a two-page commentary. I tried to summarize it in the previous paragraph, and I fear I have not succeeded. The first link is Andrew McCarthy's actual National Review piece. I'll do everything I can to disseminate this commentary in social media because I believe it to be incredibly insightful. The key to winning a war begins with knowing your enemy. Right now we seem to be a bit confused on the matter. Why did coalition air elements avoid all of the targets identified as "Khorasan" (U.S. jets only, no Qatari or Saudi jets, bombed Khorasan targets)? Is it because Khorasan is actually the Al-Nusra Front, and our allies Qatar and Saudi Arabia support Al-Nusra's efforts to topple Assad in Syria? Again, it brings me back to something we discussed last week. The United States (note that I did not say "The Coalition") must have solid intelligence regarding the players in Syria and who they represent. If we truly intend to build and equip an army to tackle the Islamic State on the ground, will a U.S. Officer be in command (at a distance, maybe offshore on an aircraft carrier, so his boots aren't on the ground)? Without that type of hands-on discipline and authority, how can we expect this Army to do our bidding? Occasionally I'm overwhelmed by this nightmare scenario of the New Syrian Army, weapons et al, deserting to the IS immediately upon completion of training. Without troops, how can we prevent something like this taking place? The burr in my saddle has to do with what becomes of the New Syrian Army after the job is done. Will they turn on Assad and the regular Syrian Army? you can bet your ass they will, and then the Russians jump into the picture.
I agree with McCarthy's assessment, but I'm not part of the "told ya so" crowd. I want the IS wiped from the face of the planet and I want the Obama Administration to accomplish this task and add to his legacy. I don't believe that the religious extremist terrorist groups are separate, distinct entities that seldom communicate. I believe the network of cooperation and communication is similar to organized crime. The goal of keeping numerous small units out in the field confuses the enemy and allows for wider access. If a former British soldier with highly specialized explosives training is recruited on the streets of Ipswich or York or Harrogate, he will not end up swatting flies out in the middle of the Syrian desert. He will be utilized to train operatives heading out into the field. The communication network that the extremist community has created is probably impossible to destroy completely (especially in the UK). We can hope to intercept calls, steal transmissions, and even occasionally bug the correct phone, but the only real way to listen in on the bad guys is through recruited assets. We are still living in the world dominated by human intelligence (eventually it probably will be run by artificial intelligence, but who am I, Stanley Kubrick?), so lets hope that our Intelligence Organizations are having success penetrating this monster.
When I read "Vengeance: The true Story Of An Israeli Counter Terrorist Team", by George Jonas, I picked up a tremendous amount of useful information regarding Terrorist Cells in the 1960s and 1970s. What is most fascinating is that the bad guys still do things the same way. Old habits are hard to break, says the old cliché. Reading this book I learned that the German Terrorist Cell the "Baader-Meinhof Group" had direct contact with Palestinian and Japanese terrorists. There is no doubt in my mind that the terrorist groups active in Syria and Iraq are bonded to each other through agenda and necessity....and hatred for the enemy. I do not support the plan to create a surrogate army to fight the ground campaign against the IS, but since we appear to be committed to that plan, then I want it to succeed 100 percent. Although we can't have U.S. soldiers of any rank on the front lines with the new Syrian Army we are training, I hope we will be able to direct their movement from a centralized location, i.e. offshore or from a nearby friendly country. Giving authority to make strategic decisions to Officers within the New Syrian Army would be a mistake until they have proven that they won't immediately about-face on the battlefield and head to Damascus to settle old scores with Bashir. We will not succeed until this coalition, and the United States diplomatic, intelligence and military elements in particular, accept the fact that we are truly facing only one enemy. That enemy will grow stronger each time we use foreign affairs to score political points, as the minority Republicans are want to do at the moment. National Security MUST trump all of that bullshit.
Sunday, September 14, 2014
Islamic Charities and Extremist Causes
Link: List of Suspect Islamic Charities
When I was a child, living in military housing in Bad Hersfeld, Germany, I remember hearing the news broadcasts about terrorist attacks in Europe and the Near East. In fact, hijackings were the rage amongst the bad guys, with their Palestinian scarves and AK-47s. I can recall my mother being particularly concerned with the German-based Baader-Meinhof gang because of their declared willingness to attack U.S. military targets. Sadly, since the days of my youth, we have never really moved out of the age of terrorism. From the outside looking in, it should not be surprising that terrorists have supporters, who argue that terrorism is the only way to give a voice to the oppressed. Islamic fundamentalist terrorists are always able to depend on the financial support of wealthy Muslims. For those working in the anti-terrorist community, it is vital to target and disrupt extremist support networks. Not surprisingly, funding for terrorism isn't conducted with the teller at the lobby of the local Chase Bank. Normally, funds being transferred on behalf of terrorist groups will usually have a "cover client". Law enforcement with an international reach, like the FBI and Interpol, are constantly monitoring the deposit, transfer and withdrawal of large sums of money. In the past, this job was much easier because the suspect transactions usually involved one of a group of suspect countries. The issue has since become much more complicated.
Terrorist groups need money. In the past, some of the most spectacular terrorist attacks have been conducted by relatively small groups. Smaller groups do not require as much financial support. But the reach of international terrorism has grown so much over the past few decades, that it has become necessary for the bad guys to find new methods of providing financial assistance to their operatives. One method of smuggling funds in and out of countries is to hide the money in places which are the least suspicious. Islamic extremists have been able to utilize numerous Islamic Charities in order to hide, launder, and deliver money. Interestingly enough, a number of the charities also raise funds for extremist activities. The FBI has identified and disrupted a number of Islamic charities (and educational foundations, for that matter) who were raising money in the United States to support terrorist groups. To be fair, its not only an issue of religion. In 1999, various wealthy Albanian-Americans were active in raising money for the Kosovo Liberation Army. And I'm sure the greatest donations to the Irish Republican Army originated in the United States (just a hypothesis).
In recent years, Qatar and Kuwait have come under scrutiny because of the suspected fund-raising activities of charities that are close to the royal families. Organizations who regularly function as a charity "during the day", but operate differently when attention is focused elsewhere, can be found throughout Europe, the United States, and the Near East. As the financial world becomes more and more connected and accessible, the easier it will be for these groups to raise and deliver funds in whatever direction they choose. At this point, its still necessary to have a decent "cover client". Some of the more well-known charities that have come under scrutiny include the Saudi Al-Haramain Foundation, the Benevolence International Foundation, the Global Relief Foundation, Islamic International Relief Organization, and Muslim Aid. Both the Global Relief Foundation and the Benevolence International Foundation, were located in the United States. Muslim Aid, located in London, was suspected of recruiting and providing support for extremist operations in Bosnia and Bangladesh.
International law enforcement has been successful in tracking the flow of money as it makes its way from terrorist supporters to the actual operatives. Court cases involving suspect charities are on the docket at this moment. Unfortunately, as law enforcement wraps up one group, another takes its place. And the bad guys are just as good as we are when it comes to maneuvering their way around the world of international finance.
When I was a child, living in military housing in Bad Hersfeld, Germany, I remember hearing the news broadcasts about terrorist attacks in Europe and the Near East. In fact, hijackings were the rage amongst the bad guys, with their Palestinian scarves and AK-47s. I can recall my mother being particularly concerned with the German-based Baader-Meinhof gang because of their declared willingness to attack U.S. military targets. Sadly, since the days of my youth, we have never really moved out of the age of terrorism. From the outside looking in, it should not be surprising that terrorists have supporters, who argue that terrorism is the only way to give a voice to the oppressed. Islamic fundamentalist terrorists are always able to depend on the financial support of wealthy Muslims. For those working in the anti-terrorist community, it is vital to target and disrupt extremist support networks. Not surprisingly, funding for terrorism isn't conducted with the teller at the lobby of the local Chase Bank. Normally, funds being transferred on behalf of terrorist groups will usually have a "cover client". Law enforcement with an international reach, like the FBI and Interpol, are constantly monitoring the deposit, transfer and withdrawal of large sums of money. In the past, this job was much easier because the suspect transactions usually involved one of a group of suspect countries. The issue has since become much more complicated.
Terrorist groups need money. In the past, some of the most spectacular terrorist attacks have been conducted by relatively small groups. Smaller groups do not require as much financial support. But the reach of international terrorism has grown so much over the past few decades, that it has become necessary for the bad guys to find new methods of providing financial assistance to their operatives. One method of smuggling funds in and out of countries is to hide the money in places which are the least suspicious. Islamic extremists have been able to utilize numerous Islamic Charities in order to hide, launder, and deliver money. Interestingly enough, a number of the charities also raise funds for extremist activities. The FBI has identified and disrupted a number of Islamic charities (and educational foundations, for that matter) who were raising money in the United States to support terrorist groups. To be fair, its not only an issue of religion. In 1999, various wealthy Albanian-Americans were active in raising money for the Kosovo Liberation Army. And I'm sure the greatest donations to the Irish Republican Army originated in the United States (just a hypothesis).
In recent years, Qatar and Kuwait have come under scrutiny because of the suspected fund-raising activities of charities that are close to the royal families. Organizations who regularly function as a charity "during the day", but operate differently when attention is focused elsewhere, can be found throughout Europe, the United States, and the Near East. As the financial world becomes more and more connected and accessible, the easier it will be for these groups to raise and deliver funds in whatever direction they choose. At this point, its still necessary to have a decent "cover client". Some of the more well-known charities that have come under scrutiny include the Saudi Al-Haramain Foundation, the Benevolence International Foundation, the Global Relief Foundation, Islamic International Relief Organization, and Muslim Aid. Both the Global Relief Foundation and the Benevolence International Foundation, were located in the United States. Muslim Aid, located in London, was suspected of recruiting and providing support for extremist operations in Bosnia and Bangladesh.
International law enforcement has been successful in tracking the flow of money as it makes its way from terrorist supporters to the actual operatives. Court cases involving suspect charities are on the docket at this moment. Unfortunately, as law enforcement wraps up one group, another takes its place. And the bad guys are just as good as we are when it comes to maneuvering their way around the world of international finance.
Thursday, September 11, 2014
The Arab Royal Families of the Persian Gulf (Part I)
(I have chosen to leave the link empty tonight. Anyone requiring additional information on these families can use Google, which is full of interesting, sometimes scandalous and often incorrect details.)
The Persian Gulf region is home to no-less than twelve royal families of Arab descent. I have chosen to not include the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, even though they descend from the Arabian Peninsula, because King Abdullah is not sitting on a mountain of oil. The royal families of Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Oman are in a class of wealth all to themselves. In the 1980s, when it became fashionable to flaunt money, media stories of Arab Shaykhs purchasing private jumbo jets, Beverly Hills property and entire retail store chains were a regular part of the news cycle. The environment has become a bit more discreet. The ruling families of the Gulf region are traditional and conservative, but it is an Islamic brand of conservatism that bears little resemblance to the Heritage Foundation and the Koch brothers. They must conduct a daily balancing act, between the need to be loyal to Islam and the fear of revolution from Islamic traditionalist within their own countries. All of the Gulf states have traditionally been allies of the United States and Europe. Americans and Europeans are the largest consumers of Arab oil (China may have moved into first place recently, but I don't think so), and the West has always more or less guaranteed the security of the various Gulf monarchies. One fact that you can bet on: the Gulf states close the wagons when necessary and will do what it takes to protect one another. In 1990 Saddam Hussein, claiming that the Emirate was actually a province of Iraq, invaded and occupied Kuwait. The other monarchies immediately began utilizing financial resources and diplomatic effort in order to send Saddam packing. They were successful. Today's post will focus on Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain, and tomorrow we will have a close look at Saudi Arabia, Oman and the UAE.
House of Sabah: The Kuwaiti royal family has extremely close ties to the United Kingdom (as do a number of other Gulf families). Not only does Kuwait sit on top of a significant amount of oil, it also happens to be located in a very sensitive and valuable piece of real estate. All sea-bound Iraqi oil must past through the Shatt al-Arab river at the northern shore of the Persian Gulf (the Shatt al-Arab is more of a confluence of the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers as opposed to an actual river). If Iran were so inclined (and the west did not intervene), the Iranian military is more than capable of occupying both the Shatt al-Arab and Kuwait, which would give the Iranians control of a nice chunk of the world's exportable petroleum. The Sabah family is actually not nearly as conservative as some of the other Gulf families. Recently, women were allowed to stand for Parliament (a rump Parliament totally subservient to the Sabah family, but still, its a start) and suggestions have been made about granting more rights to the thousands of foreign workers in Kuwait (who do all the nasty work so the wealthy Kuwaitis don't have to get their hands dirty). After the nightmare of Iraqi occupation, during which many Kuwaitis were executed, Kuwait made efforts to expand its military and strengthen its border with Iraq. But its a question of manpower. Kuwait will never have a population large enough to support a legitimate army of national defense. So Kuwait stays on the good side of the United States, at least diplomatically. On the other hand, the Kuwaitis allow extremists and fundamentalists to recruit and purchase equipment openly, and appear to support ISIL efforts to depose Bashir al-Assad in Syria. Its a tough choice for Kuwait. The economy flourishes when they allow an open market for services needed by terrorist groups, and the Sabahs have never been fans of the Ba'athists in Damascus or Baghdad. But the Sabahs have gotten in trouble before by trying to play both sides of the fence. If they allow enough of a presence of terrorists and like scum into Kuwait City (ostensibly for business purposes), they just might find themselves thrown out of the Palace by ISIL or Al Qaeda. And I for one would leave them to their devices.
House of Thani: I have always had a particular fascination for the Thani family and Qatar. Similar to the royal houses of the UAE, the Thanis have been around since the invention of the wheel, and they have always worn the pants in Doha. When Saddam invaded Iraq in 1990, the Qataris were a bit worried that, if unopposed, Saddam just might swallow up little Qatar as well. History and a review of Saddam's true intentions reveal that they didn't have much to worry about, but the Thanis are firm believers in "never hedging your bets". While cultivating a strong relationship with the United States military (Qatar is home to the U.S. Air Force Al Udeid Base, whose location is strategic, to say the least), The Qatari royal family is quite large, in proportion to the total population of Qatar. It is believed that one branch of the Thani family supports the Islamic fundamentalist cause. Terrorists have been known to use Qatar as one giant safe house, with particular terrorists (wanted for murder by Interpol and the United States) actually allowed into the palace to meet the Emir! Qatar does appreciate the money they receive as rent for the large U.S. Air Force Base, and also the protection from the bad guys in Teheran (and Baghdad), but the royal family is very happy to play both sides. One can only imagine if the CIA of old was allowed to conduct one night of multiple renditions in Qatar, how many squealing terrorist pigs we could pick up. One can dream.....
House of Khalifa: The current head of the Al-Khalifa family in Bahrain is Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa. Bahrain professes to be a teeny tiny bit democratic, in that issues pertaining to the state and the royal family are debated by the seventeen-strong Ruling Family Council. Unlike the other Gulf states, the Arab Spring of 2011 arrived in Bahrain with a vengeance. The people of Bahrain decided to join the party, and riots broke out in Manama, the capital city. The U.S. Naval Base (Naval Support Activity Bahrain) nor any other U.S. institutions were ever in any real danger. The anger that led to demonstrations seemed to be centered amongst students and young people. The Ruling Family Council, never very popular with the Qatari people, was taken by surprise. Although the situation was eventually brought under control, the Al-Khalifas were both scared and embarrassed. Since then the Prime Minister and government functionaries have been very patient with voices of discontent, and the family has made an effort to appear open to the public. Again, (interestingly enough), the anger of the demonstrators never really seemed focused on the American presence. The people were acting with one voice, asking for more authority in the government and more overall freedom. Bahrain seems more ripe for a Beatles revolution that it does an Islamic fundamentalist one.
The Persian Gulf region is home to no-less than twelve royal families of Arab descent. I have chosen to not include the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, even though they descend from the Arabian Peninsula, because King Abdullah is not sitting on a mountain of oil. The royal families of Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Oman are in a class of wealth all to themselves. In the 1980s, when it became fashionable to flaunt money, media stories of Arab Shaykhs purchasing private jumbo jets, Beverly Hills property and entire retail store chains were a regular part of the news cycle. The environment has become a bit more discreet. The ruling families of the Gulf region are traditional and conservative, but it is an Islamic brand of conservatism that bears little resemblance to the Heritage Foundation and the Koch brothers. They must conduct a daily balancing act, between the need to be loyal to Islam and the fear of revolution from Islamic traditionalist within their own countries. All of the Gulf states have traditionally been allies of the United States and Europe. Americans and Europeans are the largest consumers of Arab oil (China may have moved into first place recently, but I don't think so), and the West has always more or less guaranteed the security of the various Gulf monarchies. One fact that you can bet on: the Gulf states close the wagons when necessary and will do what it takes to protect one another. In 1990 Saddam Hussein, claiming that the Emirate was actually a province of Iraq, invaded and occupied Kuwait. The other monarchies immediately began utilizing financial resources and diplomatic effort in order to send Saddam packing. They were successful. Today's post will focus on Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain, and tomorrow we will have a close look at Saudi Arabia, Oman and the UAE.
House of Sabah: The Kuwaiti royal family has extremely close ties to the United Kingdom (as do a number of other Gulf families). Not only does Kuwait sit on top of a significant amount of oil, it also happens to be located in a very sensitive and valuable piece of real estate. All sea-bound Iraqi oil must past through the Shatt al-Arab river at the northern shore of the Persian Gulf (the Shatt al-Arab is more of a confluence of the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers as opposed to an actual river). If Iran were so inclined (and the west did not intervene), the Iranian military is more than capable of occupying both the Shatt al-Arab and Kuwait, which would give the Iranians control of a nice chunk of the world's exportable petroleum. The Sabah family is actually not nearly as conservative as some of the other Gulf families. Recently, women were allowed to stand for Parliament (a rump Parliament totally subservient to the Sabah family, but still, its a start) and suggestions have been made about granting more rights to the thousands of foreign workers in Kuwait (who do all the nasty work so the wealthy Kuwaitis don't have to get their hands dirty). After the nightmare of Iraqi occupation, during which many Kuwaitis were executed, Kuwait made efforts to expand its military and strengthen its border with Iraq. But its a question of manpower. Kuwait will never have a population large enough to support a legitimate army of national defense. So Kuwait stays on the good side of the United States, at least diplomatically. On the other hand, the Kuwaitis allow extremists and fundamentalists to recruit and purchase equipment openly, and appear to support ISIL efforts to depose Bashir al-Assad in Syria. Its a tough choice for Kuwait. The economy flourishes when they allow an open market for services needed by terrorist groups, and the Sabahs have never been fans of the Ba'athists in Damascus or Baghdad. But the Sabahs have gotten in trouble before by trying to play both sides of the fence. If they allow enough of a presence of terrorists and like scum into Kuwait City (ostensibly for business purposes), they just might find themselves thrown out of the Palace by ISIL or Al Qaeda. And I for one would leave them to their devices.
House of Thani: I have always had a particular fascination for the Thani family and Qatar. Similar to the royal houses of the UAE, the Thanis have been around since the invention of the wheel, and they have always worn the pants in Doha. When Saddam invaded Iraq in 1990, the Qataris were a bit worried that, if unopposed, Saddam just might swallow up little Qatar as well. History and a review of Saddam's true intentions reveal that they didn't have much to worry about, but the Thanis are firm believers in "never hedging your bets". While cultivating a strong relationship with the United States military (Qatar is home to the U.S. Air Force Al Udeid Base, whose location is strategic, to say the least), The Qatari royal family is quite large, in proportion to the total population of Qatar. It is believed that one branch of the Thani family supports the Islamic fundamentalist cause. Terrorists have been known to use Qatar as one giant safe house, with particular terrorists (wanted for murder by Interpol and the United States) actually allowed into the palace to meet the Emir! Qatar does appreciate the money they receive as rent for the large U.S. Air Force Base, and also the protection from the bad guys in Teheran (and Baghdad), but the royal family is very happy to play both sides. One can only imagine if the CIA of old was allowed to conduct one night of multiple renditions in Qatar, how many squealing terrorist pigs we could pick up. One can dream.....
House of Khalifa: The current head of the Al-Khalifa family in Bahrain is Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa. Bahrain professes to be a teeny tiny bit democratic, in that issues pertaining to the state and the royal family are debated by the seventeen-strong Ruling Family Council. Unlike the other Gulf states, the Arab Spring of 2011 arrived in Bahrain with a vengeance. The people of Bahrain decided to join the party, and riots broke out in Manama, the capital city. The U.S. Naval Base (Naval Support Activity Bahrain) nor any other U.S. institutions were ever in any real danger. The anger that led to demonstrations seemed to be centered amongst students and young people. The Ruling Family Council, never very popular with the Qatari people, was taken by surprise. Although the situation was eventually brought under control, the Al-Khalifas were both scared and embarrassed. Since then the Prime Minister and government functionaries have been very patient with voices of discontent, and the family has made an effort to appear open to the public. Again, (interestingly enough), the anger of the demonstrators never really seemed focused on the American presence. The people were acting with one voice, asking for more authority in the government and more overall freedom. Bahrain seems more ripe for a Beatles revolution that it does an Islamic fundamentalist one.
Thursday, September 4, 2014
Obama's speech on the crisis in Ukraine and the threat posed by ISIS/ISIL
Link: Obama's Sept. 3, 2014 speech on Ukraine and ISIS/ISIL
(In the Spring of 2010 I had a conversation with my dear friend Lindsay Moran regarding my impending retirement and ongoing medical challenges. Lindsay suggested that as a form of therapy I should write a book. She correctly surmised that it would be both cathartic and possibly of interest to other folks. Lindsay is an author herself and had tremendous success with her 2002 publication Blowing My Cover. After I realized that the book I was writing was evolving into something more than therapy, we discussed the difficulties in getting books published. Not to mention, a review of the genre shows no lack of "CIA memoirs" available on Amazon. We decided that because of the original focus, my book would be very different from the numerous espionage-related non-fiction books that can be found at Barnes & Noble. For me personally it was important that my book be as non-political as possible. I wrote about people, and it takes quite a few personalities to fill up a room full of Case Officers, Analysts and Linguists. I saw no point in excluding anyone just because I didn't agree with their politics. I have tried to mirror my blog with the same effort in mind. That being said, I have some critical observations to make about President Obama's speech today. It's the nature of the business he is in and I will not tip-toe around in an attempt to not offend someone. I would approach any speech by President Bush with the same perspective.)
President Obama began his first term with a whirlwind visit to Europe, Mexico and the Near East. In particular, I recall visits to Cairo, Egypt and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. It was the speech he gave in Cairo that appealed to many Americans who had hopes of building a
better relationship with the Islamic world. My recollection of the speech is that it was an apology, which should not have been surprising given the disagreement within the United States and in the International Community regarding the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Many Americans, I'm sure President Obama included, believed that U.S. diplomacy must move in a different direction in order to build peaceful, long-lasting relationships with the Arab world. I would have been thrilled to see this Administration succeed in their efforts. It would be nice if 6 years of Obama foreign policy would have resulted in no more beheadings of innocent Americans or conflict in Iraq. But this has not been the case. The Obama Administration has failed in its efforts to build a successful policy in the Near East (I say Near East vs. Middle East). Libya is a political quagmire with the future leaders of that country almost guaranteed to be Islamic fundamentalists, Egypt teeters on the edge of a civil war, Jordan is overrun with terrorist groups, Syria is a complete battleground between repressive fascist Bashir al-Assad and Islamic terrorists, Iraq has split into spheres of Kurdish, Sunni, Shia, and ISIS/ISIL control, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict hasn't been this bloody since the Intifada.
During the speech he gave on September 3, President Obama stated that the United States must "organize" the Arab nations in an effort to combat terrorism, defeat ISIS/ISIL, and bring peace to the region. He continues to avoid any implication that the United States might be obliged to intervene military (excluding the bombing raids in Iraq). According to Obama, peace can be achieved in Ukraine, Syria, Libya, and Gaza, through diplomacy and through the use of sanctions. You cannot convince me that he sincerely still believes this argument. In both Ukraine and in the various Near East hot spots, none of the players involved seem predisposed to a peaceful resolution. How do you force the kids fighting on the playground to put down their sticks, especially when your own stick is not nearly as big as it used to be? In a previous blog, I made the argument that the sanctions regime enacted by the United States and the European Union against Russia, was going to hurt two groups that Vladimir Putin appeared to have under his complete control: the super-rich and the poor. I'm sure the sanctions have impacted all members of Russian society to some extent, but I don't see even a hint of demonstrations in Red Square, how about you? (Except for the demonstrations in support of Putin's policy.) Providing direct military assistance to the Ukrainian Armed Forces is long overdue. I'm not sure that we have decided to take that step. Time will tell. I'm still convinced that the Russian Army is not prepared for a full invasion of Ukraine, or that Putin wants to re-attach the entire country to Mother Russia. I believe Putin is hoping for the pieces to fall together that will allow him to annex Crimea and he is willing to give up eastern Ukraine in the bargain. This development has given the Poles (and Byelorus, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) the opportunity to review military planning and policy, which in this case is a good thing.
Back to the organizing of Arab states to fight Islamic-based terrorism: Luckily I'm not afraid to say "ISLAMIC-BASED TERRORISM" or "ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM". The misuse and misinterpretation of the Quran is at the heart of the problem. It's true that the huge majority of Muslims in the world just want to live their lives in peace and at peace with their neighbors. But the bad guys have become an international crisis not because they willed it, but because they have found plenty of wealthy donors who secretly agree with their misuse and misinterpretation of the Quran. The first thing these groups need are sponsors. Secondly they need recruits. You can't have the second without the first because someone has to pay the bills. President Obama will not be successful in his effort to organize Arab states against terrorism because it is elements within these same Arab states that are supporting terrorism. In Saudi Arabia, the Wahabi movement has long been a source of conservative and anti-western dogma. The size of the royal family and its wealthy acolytes makes it impossible to accurately follow the money that flows out of the Kingdom. The same can be said for Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait. I'm giving Oman and Jordan's King Abdallah, who seems to be a truly decent man, the benefit of the doubt. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) are a true mystery. At one time the UAE were known as the Trucial States and did most of their diplomacy through Great Britain. Once oil became a huge commodity and the Brits granted independence, the seven separate emirates (Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Um al-Quwain, Fujairah, Ajman, Sharjah, and Ras al-Khaimah) smartly banded together and formed the UAE. Europeans see the UAE as a great holiday destination and the place to see the latest monumental skyscraper. The Emiratis have some amazing accomplishments to their credit. They have turned desert into shiny cities and have pioneered desalinization research. Wealthy Emiratis love horse (and camel) racing and enjoy the ancient sport of falconry. Each of the seven families controls tremendous wealth, created by the oil they sit upon. Again, we have no real idea whether any of that money finds its way into the hands of terrorists. The point is, while agreeing to tow the line diplomatically, the Arab states have no obligation to open their books to us or anyone else, and it is tremendously difficult determining if any particular player is funding terrorist activities. Some evidence does exist that money from the various royal families of the Gulf region has found its way to Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and the like. In fact, various humanitarian organizations active throughout the Near East have been discovered laundering money on behalf of terrorist groups, and that money certainly must originate somewhere.
President Obama finds himself in a difficult position. For continuity's sake, he must stress the need for diplomatic solutions to the various problems in Ukraine and the Near East. But the reality is, the United States does not have the diplomatic influence to impact any of the current crises. Once it was obvious to ISIS/ISIL that the United States military would be out of Iraq by such and such date, they began to re-establish themselves in the rural communities and stepped up attacks on Iraqi government targets. Considering the cost paid for what was achieved in Iraq (establishment of an electoral process, rebuilt refining capacity, new schools, rebuilt transportation infrastructure, rebuilt economy, etc.), I don't think it would have been too much to ask for the United States to have an Army base and an Air Force base in Iraq. It would have made a huge difference to the folks around Mosul, Arbil, and Tikrit, I can assure you. I do understand that the Administration is pressed to continue searching for diplomatic solutions to the conflicts we are discussing, but I for one can't help but focus on the real opportunities we have (which are not necessarily diplomatic in nature). We need to give the Ukrainian Armed Forces full military support (short of feet on the ground). The current exercises in Ukraine involving elements of the U.S. Army is a very smart move. As for ISIS/ISIL, we must combat the recruitment efforts in the United States and Europe, and we must disrupt their supply/resources network, which includes tracking and cutting off financial support. But sooner or later, I believe the U.S. military will have to engage ISIS/ISIL. And when that day comes, ISIS/ISIL will pay the bill in full.
(In the Spring of 2010 I had a conversation with my dear friend Lindsay Moran regarding my impending retirement and ongoing medical challenges. Lindsay suggested that as a form of therapy I should write a book. She correctly surmised that it would be both cathartic and possibly of interest to other folks. Lindsay is an author herself and had tremendous success with her 2002 publication Blowing My Cover. After I realized that the book I was writing was evolving into something more than therapy, we discussed the difficulties in getting books published. Not to mention, a review of the genre shows no lack of "CIA memoirs" available on Amazon. We decided that because of the original focus, my book would be very different from the numerous espionage-related non-fiction books that can be found at Barnes & Noble. For me personally it was important that my book be as non-political as possible. I wrote about people, and it takes quite a few personalities to fill up a room full of Case Officers, Analysts and Linguists. I saw no point in excluding anyone just because I didn't agree with their politics. I have tried to mirror my blog with the same effort in mind. That being said, I have some critical observations to make about President Obama's speech today. It's the nature of the business he is in and I will not tip-toe around in an attempt to not offend someone. I would approach any speech by President Bush with the same perspective.)
President Obama began his first term with a whirlwind visit to Europe, Mexico and the Near East. In particular, I recall visits to Cairo, Egypt and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. It was the speech he gave in Cairo that appealed to many Americans who had hopes of building a
 |
| 2009 Speech at Cairo Univesity |
 |
| Speech at Nordea Concert Hall in Tallin, Estonia Sept. 3, 2014 |
Back to the organizing of Arab states to fight Islamic-based terrorism: Luckily I'm not afraid to say "ISLAMIC-BASED TERRORISM" or "ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM". The misuse and misinterpretation of the Quran is at the heart of the problem. It's true that the huge majority of Muslims in the world just want to live their lives in peace and at peace with their neighbors. But the bad guys have become an international crisis not because they willed it, but because they have found plenty of wealthy donors who secretly agree with their misuse and misinterpretation of the Quran. The first thing these groups need are sponsors. Secondly they need recruits. You can't have the second without the first because someone has to pay the bills. President Obama will not be successful in his effort to organize Arab states against terrorism because it is elements within these same Arab states that are supporting terrorism. In Saudi Arabia, the Wahabi movement has long been a source of conservative and anti-western dogma. The size of the royal family and its wealthy acolytes makes it impossible to accurately follow the money that flows out of the Kingdom. The same can be said for Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait. I'm giving Oman and Jordan's King Abdallah, who seems to be a truly decent man, the benefit of the doubt. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) are a true mystery. At one time the UAE were known as the Trucial States and did most of their diplomacy through Great Britain. Once oil became a huge commodity and the Brits granted independence, the seven separate emirates (Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Um al-Quwain, Fujairah, Ajman, Sharjah, and Ras al-Khaimah) smartly banded together and formed the UAE. Europeans see the UAE as a great holiday destination and the place to see the latest monumental skyscraper. The Emiratis have some amazing accomplishments to their credit. They have turned desert into shiny cities and have pioneered desalinization research. Wealthy Emiratis love horse (and camel) racing and enjoy the ancient sport of falconry. Each of the seven families controls tremendous wealth, created by the oil they sit upon. Again, we have no real idea whether any of that money finds its way into the hands of terrorists. The point is, while agreeing to tow the line diplomatically, the Arab states have no obligation to open their books to us or anyone else, and it is tremendously difficult determining if any particular player is funding terrorist activities. Some evidence does exist that money from the various royal families of the Gulf region has found its way to Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and the like. In fact, various humanitarian organizations active throughout the Near East have been discovered laundering money on behalf of terrorist groups, and that money certainly must originate somewhere.
President Obama finds himself in a difficult position. For continuity's sake, he must stress the need for diplomatic solutions to the various problems in Ukraine and the Near East. But the reality is, the United States does not have the diplomatic influence to impact any of the current crises. Once it was obvious to ISIS/ISIL that the United States military would be out of Iraq by such and such date, they began to re-establish themselves in the rural communities and stepped up attacks on Iraqi government targets. Considering the cost paid for what was achieved in Iraq (establishment of an electoral process, rebuilt refining capacity, new schools, rebuilt transportation infrastructure, rebuilt economy, etc.), I don't think it would have been too much to ask for the United States to have an Army base and an Air Force base in Iraq. It would have made a huge difference to the folks around Mosul, Arbil, and Tikrit, I can assure you. I do understand that the Administration is pressed to continue searching for diplomatic solutions to the conflicts we are discussing, but I for one can't help but focus on the real opportunities we have (which are not necessarily diplomatic in nature). We need to give the Ukrainian Armed Forces full military support (short of feet on the ground). The current exercises in Ukraine involving elements of the U.S. Army is a very smart move. As for ISIS/ISIL, we must combat the recruitment efforts in the United States and Europe, and we must disrupt their supply/resources network, which includes tracking and cutting off financial support. But sooner or later, I believe the U.S. military will have to engage ISIS/ISIL. And when that day comes, ISIS/ISIL will pay the bill in full.
Saturday, August 30, 2014
Extremist Recruitment and Who is Qatar?
Links:
Islam's New Recruiting Methods
Qatar's Role as U.S. Ally At odds With Claims it Sponsors Terror
Fed's Bulletin Describes Threat of Imminent Terrorist Attack on Southern Border
Two days ago I commented on an issue which should be at the forefront of domestic counter-terrorism efforts. Islamic extremists are here in our communities, folks, and they are looking for disaffected young people to join their causes. I hope that all Federal Law Enforcement personnel affiliated with counter-terrorism operations will take the time to read the Brigette Gabriel piece that I have linked. Ms. Gabriel is one of the most brilliant, well-spoken persons who put themselves at risk by regularly commenting on Islamic Extremism. Because of her heritage, Gabriel brings immediate bona fides to her perspective. Unfortunately her heritage also makes her a target for extremists who believe that Muslim women are not worthy or intelligent enough to discuss these matters. Let's get one thing straight: Gabriel is not shrinking violet. She will go toe-to-toe with the best of them, and wins her arguments through honesty, wisdom and integrity.
Islamic extremists have been recruiting in certain American communities for decades. Particular groups of disaffected young people have shown a willingness to listen to the jihadist point of view. Most of the targets are young men, so the traditional argument that women should be kept covered, quiet, out of sight, and compliant usually meets with approval. And then we have the "40 virgins" (or whatever) that are alleged to be waiting in Heaven for those who "die for the cause". I have no intention of turning this blog into a discussion about faith. In my world, faith is a very personal issue, and excuse the cliché, but buttholes come in all shapes, sizes, and religions. For many years my mantra was "mind your own business". But the spread of Islamic extremism has made things a bit tricky. The jihadist believes so strongly in the righteousness of his/her cause, that mosques and schools have become great places to hide missiles, weapons and ammunition. Mosques are ideal for spreading particular messages, and recruiting for extremist causes. Intelligence Agencies in the United States and in Europe (and also in China and East Asia, I had been informed) have no difficulty determining links from one extremist mosque to the next. With the advent of a "borderless" Europe, people, money, and even weapons can be transported from a mosque (or religiously affiliated schools, etc.) in one country to a mosque on another. There is usually a main mosque with an Imam who considers himself a big shot (egos know no bounds with some of these Imams). Mosques affiliated with extremist beliefs are usually easy to find because these Imams just can't keep quiet. They have to shout their hatred of all things "western" louder than the guy at the mosque down the street. It would behoove them to preach a quieter more peaceful brand of Islam
so as to avoid attention. But they just can't seem to help themselves.
I won't go into detail regarding the efforts to recruit in the United States and Europe, because the main points are relatively simple. Educated persons are in high demand, and also persons with a particular trade (IEDs can be tricky). At this stage, groups like ISIS/ISIL are looking for recently retired soldiers (I'm sure they would welcome an active duty soldier as well, God help us all) who have been trained on particular weaponry. I'm sure they are looking for folks who have first-hand knowledge of Russian-made weaponry as well. A recent Google satellite shot of Al-Taqbah Airbase in Syria revealed at least 10 Mig-21s sitting on the tarmac. This is the airbase that ISIS/ISIL captured this last week. From what I understand, the Migs were still there (who knows what condition they're in). So keep your eyes peeled in the classifieds of Pravda for ads "looking for persons who can fly Mig-21s". I'm more interested in what else they picked up at that airfield. Hopefully nothing that can help them mount a biological agent delivery-system.
I assume that the inner cities of the United States, places with rampant unemployment and urban blight, are prime locations for jihadi recruitment. I imagine the Russians need to look closely at Chechnya and some of the other former Soviet Republics, if they even give a shit at this point (its been at least a few months since someone blew themselves up in Moscow).
My second link deals with the frequent accusations that Qatar is involved with supporting Islamic extremist groups. This is not a simple matter. There are a handful of obscenely rich royal families in the Gulf, and each family has hundreds if not thousands of obscenely wealthy members. The ruling Shaykh of each family is traditionally burdened with keeping everyone square, but in truth it is impossible to know who is giving money to whom. There was recently an incident at an airport in one of the U.A.E. Emirates (yes, I know I said "Emirates" twice in a row) during which a number of jumbo jets were left unclaimed. These people literally do have money to burn. As for the Shaykh of Qatar (from the Al-Thani clan), I have no reason to believe that he or his government have any financial dealings with groups like ISIS/ISIL. Since Hamas is considered by many to have social and political functions, I would expect Hamas and the Qatari government to have an official relationship. But the Qataris have hosted the U.S. Fleet for many years without incident. I'm sure some members of the royal family do financially contribute to the bad guys. Personally, though, I believe it pales in comparison to the "support for extremists" activities of some of the other royal families of the Gulf.
My final link of the day is an article about possible terrorist activity on the Texas border, namely El Paso. In all honestly, the article didn't really shake me up. It appears that Judicial Watch is quoting from a Department of Homeland Security release of some sort. I would not be surprised to see attempts to destabilize our cities with IEDs, etc., but not with a singular attack in El Paso. I'm more concerned with a series of pre-planned, well-organized and coordinated attacks in Metro areas. I don't think we have any idea how many operatives are currently sitting in place. Hopefully none.
Islam's New Recruiting Methods
Qatar's Role as U.S. Ally At odds With Claims it Sponsors Terror
Fed's Bulletin Describes Threat of Imminent Terrorist Attack on Southern Border
Two days ago I commented on an issue which should be at the forefront of domestic counter-terrorism efforts. Islamic extremists are here in our communities, folks, and they are looking for disaffected young people to join their causes. I hope that all Federal Law Enforcement personnel affiliated with counter-terrorism operations will take the time to read the Brigette Gabriel piece that I have linked. Ms. Gabriel is one of the most brilliant, well-spoken persons who put themselves at risk by regularly commenting on Islamic Extremism. Because of her heritage, Gabriel brings immediate bona fides to her perspective. Unfortunately her heritage also makes her a target for extremists who believe that Muslim women are not worthy or intelligent enough to discuss these matters. Let's get one thing straight: Gabriel is not shrinking violet. She will go toe-to-toe with the best of them, and wins her arguments through honesty, wisdom and integrity.
Islamic extremists have been recruiting in certain American communities for decades. Particular groups of disaffected young people have shown a willingness to listen to the jihadist point of view. Most of the targets are young men, so the traditional argument that women should be kept covered, quiet, out of sight, and compliant usually meets with approval. And then we have the "40 virgins" (or whatever) that are alleged to be waiting in Heaven for those who "die for the cause". I have no intention of turning this blog into a discussion about faith. In my world, faith is a very personal issue, and excuse the cliché, but buttholes come in all shapes, sizes, and religions. For many years my mantra was "mind your own business". But the spread of Islamic extremism has made things a bit tricky. The jihadist believes so strongly in the righteousness of his/her cause, that mosques and schools have become great places to hide missiles, weapons and ammunition. Mosques are ideal for spreading particular messages, and recruiting for extremist causes. Intelligence Agencies in the United States and in Europe (and also in China and East Asia, I had been informed) have no difficulty determining links from one extremist mosque to the next. With the advent of a "borderless" Europe, people, money, and even weapons can be transported from a mosque (or religiously affiliated schools, etc.) in one country to a mosque on another. There is usually a main mosque with an Imam who considers himself a big shot (egos know no bounds with some of these Imams). Mosques affiliated with extremist beliefs are usually easy to find because these Imams just can't keep quiet. They have to shout their hatred of all things "western" louder than the guy at the mosque down the street. It would behoove them to preach a quieter more peaceful brand of Islam
so as to avoid attention. But they just can't seem to help themselves.
I won't go into detail regarding the efforts to recruit in the United States and Europe, because the main points are relatively simple. Educated persons are in high demand, and also persons with a particular trade (IEDs can be tricky). At this stage, groups like ISIS/ISIL are looking for recently retired soldiers (I'm sure they would welcome an active duty soldier as well, God help us all) who have been trained on particular weaponry. I'm sure they are looking for folks who have first-hand knowledge of Russian-made weaponry as well. A recent Google satellite shot of Al-Taqbah Airbase in Syria revealed at least 10 Mig-21s sitting on the tarmac. This is the airbase that ISIS/ISIL captured this last week. From what I understand, the Migs were still there (who knows what condition they're in). So keep your eyes peeled in the classifieds of Pravda for ads "looking for persons who can fly Mig-21s". I'm more interested in what else they picked up at that airfield. Hopefully nothing that can help them mount a biological agent delivery-system.
I assume that the inner cities of the United States, places with rampant unemployment and urban blight, are prime locations for jihadi recruitment. I imagine the Russians need to look closely at Chechnya and some of the other former Soviet Republics, if they even give a shit at this point (its been at least a few months since someone blew themselves up in Moscow).
My second link deals with the frequent accusations that Qatar is involved with supporting Islamic extremist groups. This is not a simple matter. There are a handful of obscenely rich royal families in the Gulf, and each family has hundreds if not thousands of obscenely wealthy members. The ruling Shaykh of each family is traditionally burdened with keeping everyone square, but in truth it is impossible to know who is giving money to whom. There was recently an incident at an airport in one of the U.A.E. Emirates (yes, I know I said "Emirates" twice in a row) during which a number of jumbo jets were left unclaimed. These people literally do have money to burn. As for the Shaykh of Qatar (from the Al-Thani clan), I have no reason to believe that he or his government have any financial dealings with groups like ISIS/ISIL. Since Hamas is considered by many to have social and political functions, I would expect Hamas and the Qatari government to have an official relationship. But the Qataris have hosted the U.S. Fleet for many years without incident. I'm sure some members of the royal family do financially contribute to the bad guys. Personally, though, I believe it pales in comparison to the "support for extremists" activities of some of the other royal families of the Gulf.
My final link of the day is an article about possible terrorist activity on the Texas border, namely El Paso. In all honestly, the article didn't really shake me up. It appears that Judicial Watch is quoting from a Department of Homeland Security release of some sort. I would not be surprised to see attempts to destabilize our cities with IEDs, etc., but not with a singular attack in El Paso. I'm more concerned with a series of pre-planned, well-organized and coordinated attacks in Metro areas. I don't think we have any idea how many operatives are currently sitting in place. Hopefully none.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)