Iraqi Armed Forces, alongside Shi'a militia, making progress in retaking territory from ISIS.

Since the recovery of Ramadi, the Iraqi Armed Forces have continued to put pressure on ISIS elements by clearing ISIS from the Hit District, and moving to isolate ISIS forces in Fallujah.  The Shi'a militias, still fighting under the banner of "Popular Mobilization Units", have also been successful, as ISIS seems to be unable to conduct the daily terror attacks and suicide bombings that were conducted last summer with such frequency.  In particular, Baghdad and Diyala Province are no longer suffering from the terrorist attacks that had become so familiar.  The Iraqi military is determined to consolidate its position in Baiji and to end ISIS operations against Hadithah, but efforts to retake Mosul remain a priority.  ISIS has had the opportunity to consolidate its hold on Mosul and to fortify the city in typical ISIS fashion, which includes booby traps and Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs).  The Iraqi Army currently in the field is not the Iraqi Army that faced off against ISIS outside of Tikrit in 2014.  The Iraqi military of today has become familiar with the strategy and tactics of ISIS, including the use of human hostages and hidden explosive devices, and has turned the table on ISIS attempts to utilize fear and intimidation as a weapon.  The Iraqi military has benefitted greatly from the training providing by U.S. Special Forces.  ISIS was using the same strategies employed by the Iraqi insurgents in 2006-7, which included targeting civilians and taking hostages; the Iraqi Army is using tactics employed by the U.S. Army against the insurgency, which included using superior manpower, weaponry and air elements to constantly harass the enemy into retreating.  The Iranian-supported and Shi'a led Popular Mobilization Forces have been acting in concert with the Iraqi military, and has succeeded in pushing ISIS out of Sammarah.

It is obvious that ISIS has suffered some serious setbacks in Iraq during the first months of 2016.  ISIS has had difficulty resupplying its forces in Iraq, and continued Russian pressure in Syria is forcing ISIS leaders to make difficult decisions regarding reinforcements.  Although ISIS has not been forced to retreat in Syria as it has been obliged to do in Iraq, the issue of supply has become a priority.  ISIS continues to successfully recruit outside of the Middle East, and funding has not diminished.  But the United States and its European partners have had success intercepting and disrupting some of ISIS' funding mechanisms, which has impacted the organization's ability to pay its operatives.  Also, resupplying has been very difficult, and almost always conducted under the cover of night. The overall situation on the ground in Syria and Iraq and moved decidedly in favor of the U.S., Russia, Iran, and Bashar al-Assad.  With the involvement of Russia in Syria, very attempt to degrade ISIS will be an effort in support of al-Assad and his Syrian Ba'ath party.  This conclusion is unavoidable.  Given the nuclear treaty drafted last year and signed by the U.S., major European nations, and Iran, it appears as if the U.S. is interested in furthering the influence and military presence of Iran.  For the moment, the Iranians appear content to meddle with  Iraqi internal political affairs, and will let the Popular Mobilization Units do its fighting.  It will be interesting to see what policy is adopted by the United States, provided a Republican wins the presidency in 2016.  Obviously, its traditional to oppose the Iranians, but if events continue to favor al-Assad, Russia and Iran, it will prove very difficult to revert to previous policy.    

Iraq: U.S. compromises with Iran have not influenced the Iranians to abandon the policy of undermining United States initiatives.

Links: A. Turkey unilaterally invades Iraq to launch attacks against Kurdish PKK militants.
           B.  Iraq claims to have retaken 60% of Ramadi City.

In a move that will no doubt escalate already dangerously high tensions in the area, Turkey deployed military units into northeastern Iraq, just outside of Mosul, in order to more effectively launch attacks against militants from the Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK).  If Turkish President Erdogan was looking for the quickest way to unite the Kurds, and at the same time, bring the Iraqi government and the Kurdish authorities closer together, they found it.  Turkey's actions are almost inexplicable, unless Erdogan is determine to make things difficult for Barack Obama as he tries to leave office gracefully.  At the same time, the Pentagon is preparing to deploy roughly 200 U.S. Army Special Forces elements into Iraq, to act as a mobile "hit squad" to take out ISIS leaders, if you will.  This policy seems to fly in the face of Executive Order 12333, signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, which prohibits any Agent or Representative of the United States Government from involvement in assassinations.  I may be nit-picking here, especially since we already are aware of this Administration's perception of the Constitution and the laws of this nation.  Either way, the arrival of this American Special Forces Unit has already come under heavy criticism in Baghdad, where Prime Minister Abadi is doing everything he can to keep the ship of state from sinking altogether.  Abadi is under particular pressure from the Shi'a elements in the Council of Representatives, who are angling to bring a vote of no confidence against the Iraqi Prime Minister.  Also, Iranians in Baghdad are as thick as fleas on a mongrel's back, and they are also putting pressure on the government, both to oppose the deployment of more U.S. troops, and to take action against the Turkish incursion northeast of Mosul.  Abadi has been under fire before, but this time his administration may not survive.

One of the most appalling and embarrassing developments in the region has been the continued intransigence from the Iranians with regards to any U.S. diplomatic or military initiatives.  I assume that following the nuclear treaty negotiations, the Obama Administration (the President, Vice President Biden, and Secretary of State Kerry in particular) expected the Iranian government to lighten the anti-U.S. rhetoric and to be less aggressive in opposing every U.S. action in the region.  I knew better, and you knew better, but for some reason, the three men with the greatest access to intelligence on this planet, didn't see this coming.  Or did they, and it just didn't matter?  At the moment, events in Iraq and Syria need to be stabilized, before the Iraqi's end up at war with Turkey, or the Turks decide that the time is right to "ethnic-cleanse" northern Iraq of Kurds once and for all.  The action ordered by the President and taken by the Pentagon to deploy Special Forces is way too little and way too late, and will cause more harm than good, especially if Abadi falls from power.  It has been suggested (whispered more like) in DC that the Obama Administration is hesitant to take stronger military action against ISIS, because increased U.S. presence in the region will infuriate Iran, and put Obama's "legacy treaty" with Iran in jeopardy.

What we can expect is the Administration attempting to steer the media away from connecting the recent terror attack in San Bernardino to the ongoing conflict in Syria.  Obama is bound and determined to avoid getting drawn into a full-scale war in Syria/Iraq.  I'm not so reactionary that I don't see the ideological motivation; the United States has a tempestuous relationship with most of the governments in the Middle East and Persian Gulf, and lets not forget that we invaded Iraq twice in the last thirty years.  Our historical tradition of supporting unpopular governments in Egypt and Iran and our long-term, close relationship with Israel, have not endeared the U.S. to the people of the region, that's for sure.  But the clock is ticking (excuse the cliché); ISIL/ISIS/Daesh or whatever you want to call them, have not been really impacted by the Russian intervention in Syria (probably because most of the Russian bombs were dropped on anti-government Syrian groups as opposed to ISIS).  ISIS is increasing its activities in Africa and in the Far East, and I expect we will soon see a more regular pattern to domestic terror events (God forbid).  Still today, on December 9, 2015, the United States is military capable of destroying ISIS on our own.  But a serious effort at building a military coalition, to include our European allies and Russia (who should be told, bluntly, to "get on board or get out of the way"), would a tremendous advantage in eliminating this scourge once and for all.  Why now?  Because if ISIS continues to raise money and recruit, I have no idea how improved their conventional army will become (with modern weapons, tanks, artillery, and possibly and Air element), nor can we accurately gauge how complicated and dangerous the situation will be in the urban and residential areas of Europe and the United States.  Some crusty old General once said, that when you go to war, you must use everything at your disposal, every weapon, no matter how heinous, and you must fight with the utmost aggression and determination.  This is the formula for ending a war quickly, which will save countless lives on both sides, especially when compared to wars that drag on and on and on......

Iraqi Security Forces remain committed to retaking Ramadi.

Link: Political troubles distracting Iraqi government from ISIS campaign.

In spite of recent efforts by the Shi'a militias/Popular Mobilization Units (PMUs) to oppose and discredit the reform agenda by Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Abadi, the Iraqi government continues to voice confidence in the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) attempt to retake Ramadi.  Drip by drip, local Sunni Tribal Militia recruits complete training in Habaniya and join their compatriots outside Ramadi.  The Iraqi Army and its Special Police Units have been making very slow progress, but ground is being taken.  The ISF is not attacking Ramadi from only one direction; the effort is to invest the town from the east, west, north, and south.  Ideally, this would have led to the isolation of Ramadi more quickly, but it hasn't happened.  ISIS continues to have access to its forces in both Ramadi and Fallujah.  The ISF has identified the roads which allow both cities to be accessed, and an effort is underway to shut them down.  One road which is still open to ISIS actually leads from Fallujah to Ramadi.  Why the allied air campaign hasn't turned this road into dust is a mystery, although if it continues to be heavily traveled by civilians, then bombing would be out of the question.  What if ISIS disguises their reinforcements and supplies as civilian traffic, as they have done repeatedly in both Syria and Iraq?  That is a question that as of yet has no answer.

The PMUs continue to destabilize the situation in Baghdad, as ISIS increases its attacks in the city and also in Baiji and Thar Thar, south of Samarrah.  Its obvious that ISIS is attempting to exploit the showdown between the Iraqi government and Shi'a militias, by securing territory already occupied and launching attacks on fresh targets.  The Iraqi government has the obvious support of the great majority of the population, including the Shi'a.  But this is a population that has seen tremendous violence and has been terrorized for decades from the end of a gun barrel.  The militias are threatening to treat any pro-reform demonstrations as a security threat, and as they have already declared themselves the de facto authority in both Baghdad and Basra, it must be assumed that they won't hesitate to shoot unarmed protesters.  Abadi knows that the popular support of the people, along with the consistent support of Shi'a religious leader Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, are all he can rely on as the ISF and police are occupied in Anbar.  But Abadi appears understandably hesitant to call the people to the streets, for the showdown that would result which he cannot hope to win.  With the army and police occupied on the front lines, there is some question as to why the militias haven't attempted to remove Abadi from office by force.  Certainly there are enough Maliki supporters and Iranian hacks in the Iraqi government and Parliament for a new cabinet and administration to be formed, one that wouldn't try to enact all of the anti-corruption reforms that threaten Maliki so much.  The reality is, any effort to remove Abadi would have to be approved by Tehran, and right now the Iranians are basking in the glow of their new-found reputation as Russia's partner in countering ISIS in Syria.  The Iranians are just as anxious to move into the vacuum left by the United States, to take up a leadership role alongside the Russians in Syria in Putin's plan to stand up to ISIS.  This effort, along with the new nuclear treaty written by the United States, a few European countries, and Iran, make Iran so squeaky clean that they can barely stand themselves.  An Iranian-sponsored government change in Baghdad, with the battle of Ramadi raging to the west, would not be seen as a productive development.  For this reason more than any other, Abadi is safe....for the moment.

Blatent militia involvement in kidnapping of Turkish workers in Baghdad exemplifies the struggle for authority.

Link: Militia releases video of kidnapped Turkish workers.

A previously unknown Shi'a militia identifying itself as "Death Squads" has taken responsibility for the kidnapping of eighteen Turkish workers on September 2, and released a video of the captives.  In all likelihood, this new group is a recently concocted cover for Kata'ib al-Hezbollah, the Shi'a militia which was strongly suspected from the beginning of being responsible for the kidnappings. In the video, the kidnappers demand a number of concessions on behalf of Turkey, in order to secure the release of the eighteen construction workers who were in Baghdad to complete the building of a new sports stadium.  The "Death Squad" is demanding that Turkey "seize gunmen" who are transiting through Turkey to Iraq.  Turkey is also required to halt the transfer of "stolen oil" from Iraqi Kurdistan through Turkey.  The Shi'a militias and Iran are opposed to the Iraqi Kurds having access to oil and using it to develop an economy, as this might help legitimize and Kurdish claim to statehood.  The last demand was the most interesting from my perspective.  The kidnappers are demanding that the Turkish government end all support for Jaysh al-Fatah, a Syrian rebel coalition led by Al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra.  Recently, Jabhat al-Nusra has dealt a number of staggering military defeats on Syrian regime forces.  In fact, in northwest Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra is expected to begin an offensive soon that will sweep down to the strategic al-Ghab Plain and put pressure on the Alawite community and Assad's hometown of Qardaha.  In the past six months, Nusra has become much more effective at combating regime forces than the handful of other anti-regime military groups, which explains why the militias, who are directed from Tehran, would demand that Turkey stop aiding Nusra.  I have yet to see direct proof that Turkey is aiding Jabhat al-Nusra, but it is possible, given Turkish President Erdogan's personal obsession with removing the Assad family from power in Syria.

The government has very little it can do to rescue the kidnapped workers.  Most Special Police Units are fighting outside Ramadi, and the militias present a difficult target.  Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi can take solace in the continued support from Iraqi and Shi'a cleric the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who has ordered the kidnappers to release their hostages, making note of the damage being done to the authority of the state, by those who are pledged to protect Iraq.  Little good it did, as the kidnappers  pray to the Ayatollahs sitting in Qom, Iran, not Najaf, Iraq.  But Sistani's continued aggressive support of Abadi provides valuable bona fides to the reform movement in the eyes of the Iraqi Shi'a.  It also puts other Shi'a leaders on the spot.  For instance, Moqtadah al-Sadr, who is the titular head of the Mahdi Army, one of the larger Shi'a militias, has called for the government to immediately take action to free the hostages.  During his public comments on the kidnapping issue, Sadr referred to some of the Shi'a groups as "brazen militias" that should be boycotted by the Popular Mobilization Committee.  Sadr is no friend to Abadi or the reform movement, so he must either be feeling some pressure regarding the kidnapping, or he is using this opportunity to remove Nouri al-Maliki from the scene altogether.  Its quite possible that Sadr, who has definite visions of future power and grandeur, considers Maliki a threat because of Maliki's previous good relationship with the Iranians.

These developments give us an opportunity to examine the animosity between Turkey and Iran, two militarily powerful Muslim nations who share a common border.  Erdogan is aggravated to no end by Iran's use of Hezbollah in Lebanon as a proxy to provide extensive military support to Bashir al-Assad.  The Iranians have always considered the Turks to be tainted through their historic and military ties to the United States, and in the 1990s, when the Turkish Armed Forces started conducting joint military maneuvers with the Israelis, you could just sense the Imams and Ayatollahs in Qom chewing on their turbans and crashing their flying carpets in to the walls.  Now that the Russians have decided, very late in the game, that Assad is worth saving, Iran has an ally on the  battlefields of Syria besides Hezbollah and the regime forces.  The pro-Assad groups are relatively easy to distinguish, but the rest is one big stew of different names, individual ideologies, loyalties, intentions, and complaints.  I'm not sure where Nusra fits in as opposed to the Syrian Kurds.  And what about the free Syrian Army?  And then there exists a handful of smaller groups, operating on their own agenda, including groups of former U.S. servicemen who have volunteered to go back to Mesopotamia to fight ISIS.  Turkey may very well end up playing a large role in how this drama eventually plays itself out.  Outside of Syria and Iraq, they have the most serious security concerns because of the conflict.  If the Turks made the decision to commit themselves totally, they could probably destroy ISIS in Syria in a matter of weeks, although no guarantees about collateral casualties.  Its the one question which troubles me the most: since everyone recognizes ISIS for the real threat to world peace that they hope to become, then why haven't we committed ourselves militarily to their rapid and total destruction?  Heck, the Turks, Iranians, and even the Israelis could join the party.  For now we watch developments in Iraq, to learn if the Abadi regime can survive both an assault by the anti-reform militias, and the possible failure of the Anbar offensive.  

Kurdish politics, and other confusing headaches.

Links: A. Kurdish political parties trying to resolve presidential debate.
           B. Wikipedia entry for Peshmerga.
           C. Wikipedia entry for PKK.


During my career, I was fortunate enough to work closely with representatives of both the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), and the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP).  In 2003 and 2004, the opposing Kurdish political parties had set aside much of their differences, at least in Baghdad, for the best interests of the greater Iraqi Kurdish community.  Both groups were represented by well-educated, deferential, hard-working people, who were tremendously supportive of the United States and our military forces in particular.  I remember that the PUK had taken possession of two large, adjoining compounds in the Mansour neighborhood of Baghdad, which they utilized for a variety of purposes, including regular meetings with representatives of U.S. government agencies.  Jalal Talabani, founder and leader of the PUK, maintained a much more elaborate residence in Baghdad, closer to the Karada neighborhood.  My initial visit to the PUK compound brought me into contact with Peshmerga (Kurdish for "one who confronts death") for the first, but certainly not the last time.  The Peshmerga are the military forces for the autonomous region of Iraqi Kurdistan; they attempt to maintain a non-aligned posture with regards to the PUK and KDP, who have, at times, really had a go at each other.  Although I've never seen a female Peshmerga, I've been told that they exist.  This group represents the type of self-reliant, hardy, low-maintenance soldier that we don't see much anymore.  They are brave, well-trained, and move together flawlessly when operational.  That being said, I wouldn't invite them to a candlelight dinner party.  From my experience (forgive the stereotyping), they stink, and although not rude, normally haven't picked up much in the way of manners.  I wrote in my book about a meeting I had once at the PUK house, where we discovered two Peshmerga asleep under the table because of the volume and frequency of their farts.  Aside from the U.S. Armed Forces, I can't think of any group that I would want fighting by my side more than the Peshmerga.

I have at times been accused of being biased towards the Kurds.  I am guilty as charged.  I have no qualms about admitting that I support the Kurdish struggle for an independent homeland.  As a people, they are kind, generous, welcoming, hard-working and very family-oriented.  They can also hold a grudge for a very long, long time.  The majority of Kurds are Sunni Muslim, but the manner of worship in the Kurdish community, regardless of affiliation, is much different than what is normally observed in the Arab world.  Kurds are private about their religious observations, although most Kurds are very observant of Islamic obligations.  They go about their business in such a way as to not draw attention to themselves.  This is a true example of a community that values the private nature of its religious identity.  Sure, the majority are Sunni Muslim, but they don't advocate the use of shura to settle every issue, nor do they feel this automatic disconnect with Christians and Jews.  I understand the reasoning behind keeping Iraq united.  If the Kurds were granted a homeland in northern Iraq, the rest of the country would be in danger of disintegration.  Maybe its time for that disintegration to take place, given that the area that was once known as Babylon, then Mesopotamia, and now Iraq, has not made a great success of ethnic integration.  It might happen with or without the Kurds, especially if the majority Shi'a continue to assert themselves and the Sunni start to consider life inside the Islamic Republic of Iraq.

Turkey's recent decision to end the de-facto cease fire with the quasi-military organization the Kurdish Worker's Party (PKK), has been a reminder that the ISIS crisis is one of a number of unresolved conflicts in this part of the world, that sit just under the skin, waiting to erupt again.  Northern Syria is home to a substantial number of ethnic Kurds, and the anti-ISIS coalition has benefitted tremendously from their willingness to stand up and defend their own communities.  Even the Turks have benefitted, as Ankara is not keen about having ISIS as a direct neighbor.  But the Turks are experts at separating one group of Kurds from another.  According to Ankara, the Syrian Kurds who fight ISIS tooth-and-nail are not connected to the "terrorist" PKK.  Turkey's decision to conduct bombing sorties against suspected PKK locations was a naked political move on the part of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, to energize anti-Kurd elements in Turkey before pivotal fall elections.  Not surprisingly, many in the Turkish electorate will scream for vengeance regarding three Turkish soldiers killed in a PKK attack, and not think twice about the Kurds whose murder precipitated the retaliatory ambush.  All the while, the Kurdistan Parliament, which sits in Arbil, is struggling with the never-ending debate over the office of President. The current office-holder, President Masoud Barzani, is the head of the KDP.  In 2009, Barzani was elected with 69.9 % of the vote, and in 2013, the parliament decided to extend his term until 2015.  The five major Kurdish political parties were attempting to resolve the issue of succession, but failed before Barzani's term expired on August 20.  Believe me, Kurdish politics can get very complicated. Its imperative that Kurdistan present a united front, given the renewed trouble with Turkey and the continuing war against ISIS in both Syria and Iraq.  The PDK will argue for another extension for Barzani, which, for political expediency, will be supported by the PUK.  The remaining parties do not represent enough votes to budge a joint KDP/PUK effort.  Expect the Kurdistan Parliament to extend Barzani's term to 2017, when it meets to debate the issue on August 23. 

Obama's treaty with Iran surpasses Neville Chamberlain in sacrificing international security in search of a political legacy.

Links: A. ISIS a beneficiary of the Obama/Iran nuclear treaty.
           B. Putin assisted with Obama/Iran nuclear treaty.

So, Vladimir Putin heartily approves of the treaty agreed to by the Obama Administration and the Islamic Republic of Iran.  In fact, President Obama is quick to praise Putin for being helpful during the negotiations.  How quickly we forget who we are dealing with.  Have we forgotten the 298 dead civilians from Malaysian Airlines flight 17, whose lives were lost because Putin agreed to use advanced Russian military hardware in the Ukrainian conflict.  Unfortunately, he didn't lend the experts who know how to use the equipment, and the result was a civilian airline being mistaken for a military flight.  The world understands and excepts this reality, along with many others that show Putin to be a megalomaniacal dictator, intent on returning Russia to the military prominence of the Cold War.  Every effort made by the United States on behalf of de-escalation of violence and the end of nuclear proliferation, up to now has been met with cold, hard opposition by Putin in Russia.  The Russians never sided with the United Nations in its efforts to force Iran to steer away from militarizing its nuclear research.  But now, because Putin approves of this treaty, he's become "a friend".  And those of us in this country, including many who have served in uniform and sacrificed limbs for national security, are called "overheated and dishonest" by Obama.  And now we are told that the Administration has been working on a "rapprochement" with Russia, and has started putting pressure on the Ukrainian government to be more conciliatory to the Russian-backed terrorists, I mean separatists, who are trying to detach entire pieces of Ukraine for annexation by Russia.

I have no doubt that this Administration did not spend one second considering the consequences of this treaty on the current unstable situation in the Persian Gulf and the Levant.  All that mattered was to keep the goal in sight, and the goal in this instance was a treaty of some sort to allow Obama to leave office claiming credit for some foreign policy initiative.  I don't understand why he just didn't focus on one of his other, previous foreign policy initiatives; he's had six years so there must be something, right?  Fat chance.  Our foreign policy over the past six years has been as knee-jerk as a reflex in a doctor's office.  Under President's Reagan, Bush, and even Clinton, our government continued the tradition of initiating positive change in the world.  The last six years have been singularly about responses, not initiatives.  Now for a bit of simple, common-sense.  ISIS is a religiously Sunni-affiliated organization, as is Al-Qaida.  Iran, with the lifting a sanctions, which conservatively will release as much as one hundred billion dollars to the Iranian treasury, will rapidly become a dominant force in the Persian Gulf.  The ballsy involvement with the Houthis in Yemen has already demonstrated this Iranian Administration's determination to expand its international influence.  Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates, who are already suspected of having some funding connections to Sunni extremism, will look upon recent developments as a return to the Battlefield of Karbala.  Even if the Iranians were to fulfill their obligations according to this treaty, in five years they would again be free to pursue whatever type of nuclear research they desire.  There are a number of questionable facilities that are part of the Iranian nuclear research program, which can have no purpose other than the construction of a nuclear weapon.  It would have been nice if our negotiating team had at least requested that the Iranians shut these facilities.  But as far as I know, nothing was requested of the Iranians whatsoever, except the need for unannounced inspections.  Well, we saw how far that demand went.

Lets welcome Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. to the nuclear arms race.  Lets also congratulate Sunni extremists everywhere, who will now be able to use the growing power of Shi'a Iran as a recruiting and fundraising tool.  This treaty is so flawed that I think its time I took a sabbatical from reviewing its contents.  Instead, I will pick up another debate which is near and dear to my heart.  In 1993, President Clinton signed a law making it illegal for active duty military personnel to be armed on base.  I can't recall if this law was preceded by some incident involving firearms and active duty personnel, but I can tell you that the United States is not the same country as it was twenty-one years ago.  Our Federal Law Enforcement and Intelligence experts stress the likelihood that Islamic extremists are living within our communities, waiting for the order or the opportunity to strike.  On a number of occasions, we have already seen that military installations are prime targets.  This is the world we live in today, 2015.  Our young men and women who volunteer to put their lives in jeopardy for national security, should not be deprived of the ability to defend themselves.  Are we supposed to tell these soldiers that we can trust them enough to die for their country, but they can't be trusted enough to carry a weapon on base?  What an absurd law.  I'm not afraid to state the obvious, and point directly to former President Bill Clinton: if that law had not passed in 1993, its probable that at least some of the victims of Thursday's attack would have been armed.  I will leave the rest of that assumption up to the reader..... 

Iran using Maliki and the Popular Mobilization Units to further its influence in Iraq.

Links: A. Wikipedia definition of Popular Mobilization Units.
           B. Wikipedia entry for Nouri al-Maliki.

Keeping track of the evolving political scenario in Iraq can be quite a headache.  I avoided digging into the "Popular Mobilization Units (PMUs)" issue for some time, electing to use the phrase, "Shi'a-based militias".  But recent events have made it apparent to me that these groups of informal, guerilla-type, less-than-disciplined military units have become an important piece on the Iraqi political chessboard.  Wikipedia has provided a tremendously useful definition of the PMUs, which we have included in Link A.  In 2014, following the fall of Mosul and Ramadi, Shi'a
Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani called for Iraqis of all faiths to join together to defeat the Islamic State (IS).  The response was as expected, with the Shi'a volunteering by the truckloads, while the Sunnis remained basically unmoved.  A number of Shi'a militias already existed, including the Badr Corps (or Brigade), Kata'ib Hezbollah, al-Haq, and interestingly enough, the Mahdi Army.  For students of history, the Mahdi Army was the name chosen by the Islamic fanatics who attempted to create a Caliphate in the Sudan in the 1880s.  Muhammad Ahmad, a Sudanese religious leader of the Samaniyya Order, proclaimed himself "Mahdi" (messianic redeemer of the Islamic faith) on June 29, 1881.  Sudan was a protectorate, or colony of England at the time, and after dispatching the small contingent or Royal troops in Khartoum, the Mahdi and his followers looked towards Egypt.  Although Muhammad Ahmad died six months after Khartoum fell, another member of the Samaniyya Order stepped in to become Mahdi #2 (Abdalli ibn-Muhammad).  The British did not respond well to this threat, and dispatched an army to the Sudan, which in short order dispatched the Mahdi and his followers.  Future British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was present during this war, and his memoirs are fascinating for aficionados of the subject.  Back to the subject at hand...

The throng of Shi'a who followed Sistani's call to arms swelled the ranks of the basically five militias that were deploying against the IS threat. Initially, the Iraqi government made an effort to keep the militias under the authority of the Ministry of the Interior, with the hope that the groups would engage the enemy with some sense of cohesion.  Since the beginning of the conflict with the IS, the ISF has not always impressed on the battlefield, an issue which is the result of the U.S. military being withdrawn from Iraq precipitously, before the ISF training schedule had been fully implemented.  In fact, the ISF delivered billions of dollars in military weapons to the IS, simply by deserting the field of battle and leaving behind everything they couldn't stick in their pockets.  On the other hand, the militias have always performed with great courage and surprising discipline. The ISF has regrouped and delivered some stinging defeats to the IS, but none of it would have been possible without the militias.  The Iraqi government, in its continuing effort to keep control of the militias (which for the most part saw their benefactor as Iran).  The Iranians provided advisors, training and equipment to the militias, and the shared Shi'a connection cannot be stressed to highly.  The Iranians intend on keeping the militias separate from the ISF and out from under the control of the Iraqi government.  Each militia has its own leader, who can depend upon the loyalty of his group.  Current Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, in a futile effort to exercise some control, placed the command of the militias under the direct control of the Prime Minister's office.  But its difficult to for Abadi to gain traction when even the usually diplomatic Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani clearly identifies the independent nature of the militias.  Marja Ali-al-Sistani (Marja signifying the Islamic legal authority of a Grand Ayatollah) has provided for the conduct of the militias, with a declaration of "Advice and Guidance to the Fighters on the Battlefields".  This declaration included twenty points to dictate the conduct of the militias.  Most importantly, Islamic Law should be in effect for areas liberated by the militias.  To quote a Hadith of the Prophet Muhammed, "do not indulge in acts of extremism, do not disrespect dead corpses, do not resort to deceit, do not kill and elder, do not kill a child, do not kill a woman, and do not cut down trees unless necessity dictates otherwise."  Its obvious that the IS and the militias are using a separate Islamic Law Book.

The Iraqi Prime Minister's office is faced with attempting to control the militias (or PMUs), while the PMUs are taking their marching orders from Sistani and the Iranians.  Everything is copacetic as long as all three share the same agenda.  But what can we expect after the IS is defeated?  And to add to the confusion, former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a man with a few mistakes to his credit, has started to make noise again.  In 2014 Maliki attempted to extend his term in office.  His effort failed when his own supporters abandoned him.  Now Maliki is making waves by claiming that he is responsible for the creation of the PMUs, as opposed to Ali al-Sistani.  At a Shi'a tribal gathering on June 13 in the Holy City of Karbala, Maliki claimed that the fall of the Sunni areas of Anbar province was "a Sunni sectarian revolution against the Shiites".  Maliki also seems to believe that the fall of Mosul during his term as Prime Minister was a conspiracy brought on by the Mosul Provincial Council and the Kurds!  On June 17, Iranian Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called for a political role for the PMUs in shaping Iraq's future.  We are convinced that the Iranians would like to see the PMUs morph into an Iraqi "Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps" (IRGC), and Maliki is just the man to stir up Sunni/Shia rivalries.  With Maliki making speeches to enflame the Iraqi Shia, and the ISF unable to successfully combat the IS without the PMUS, the stage is set for a major escalation in Iranian influence in Iraq.  And when did all this happen?  While Secretary of State John Kerry was negotiating a Nuclear Treaty with Iran, which if approved would end the Iranian sanctions regime.  This Administration just can't get enough of making treaties with unreliable governments.  The Iranians openly express disrespect and disdain for our way of life and our values; why in the world would be expect them to abide by a treaty with us?  As I see it, and as I understand Islam, their disdain for us actually OBLIGATES them to not abide by the restrictions in the treaty.  Quel bordel!

Hezbollah keeping Assad regime from rapid contraction.

Link: Hezbollah assists regime forces to retake Syrian border city.

We have been noting for the past few months that recent losses to Jabhat al-Nusrah (JN) and the Islamic Front (IS) have effectively ended any regime threat in eastern Syria.  The Syrian Army still controls a few widely dispersed communities in the east (including Hasaka), but Assad's only real area of influence and control is far west Syria, from Aleppo down south to Damascus.  The regime continues to control the air (except when the U.S.-led, anti-IS air coalition is operational), which has limited recent attempts by the rebels to take Aleppo.  We have also noted that, along with a decreased regime presence in the east, Assad no longer seems to be receiving much support from Russia.  We opined that without his Russian benefactor, that Assad would eventually be obliged to throw in the towel.  I'm sorry to say that we didn't take into account the impact of increased aid from Hezbollah, and by proxy, Iran.  Hezbollah fighters were instrumental in the regime's capture of Zabadani, a town located on the Syria/Lebanon border that until recently was held by rebels. 

If Iranian support for the Assad regime continues (or increases), he will likely survive any offensive by JN or the IS to take Damascus or even Aleppo.  Hezbollah has no problem moving fighters from Lebanon to Syria, and former rebel supply lines that went through Lebanon have been eradicated.  It will be interesting to see if Hezbollah increases its military presence in Syria, or if we might start to see Iranian advisors among Assad's troops, as we have occasionally seen in Iraq.  Depending on how ambitious Iran wants to be, the IS is presently confronted by Iranian-backed regime elements in Syria, and Iranian-supported militia in Iraq.  Given that the IS is a Sunni-based movement, we note the extension of the conflict between Shi'a and Sunni.  Iran has already influenced the rise of the Houthi movement in Yemen, and the activities of the Shi'a militias in Iran.  With the involvement of Hezbollah and the increased support by Iran for the Assad regime, Iran seems intent on setting the stage for another Sunni-Shi'a conflict.  As this situation develops, the United States is faced with the difficult task of identifying who is the more dangerous enemy: the IS, with its growing conventional army and its network of affiliates around the globe, or Iran, which is bound and determined to develop a nuclear weapon capability, and can't seem to stop fomenting Shi'a unrest in various hotspots in the Middle East.

All things considered, this might be a good time for the United States to allow both the Shi'a extremists and the Sunni hot heads to "whittle" each other down a bit.  Not very long ago, the CIA might take the opportunity to create a covert "influence campaign", to utilize social media and other resources to agitate the two groups, and get them to go after each other.  It would certainly keep their focus away from sponsoring international terrorism for a while, or at least that would be the intention.  But those type of operations are a thing of the past.  The Obama Admnistration would never use the CIA to conduct an operation of that nature.  As things stand, we find ourselves supporting the Free Syrian Army, which when we last checked, was actively engaging regime elements, as opposed to the IS, and continuing this nebulous air campaign, that seems to generate no intelligence or news whatsoever.  How much are we spending on those two initiative?  When Bush was in office, didn't we hear a never-ending cacophony from the left about the taxpayers dollars being wasted?  Isn't this a bit of waste as well?  If not, then great, but I want to know the details: how hs it been a success?


(Separate Comment)

The Reality of Illegal Immigrant Felons in the U.S.

We have noticed a rash of news stories lately regarding illegal immigrant felons who have been allowed to stay in the United States after being released from jail, only to offend again.  Because sensational news gets more attention, the stories that involve children or loss of life will always be the priority.  Do you know what a "Sanctuary City is"?  For those who don't, a Sanctuary City is a community that purposely choses to NOT inform Federal Law Enforcement when a foreign national felon has served their time and is being released to the street.  The law requires the community local law enforcement to notify Homeland Security Deportations, so these felons can be returned to their country of nationality.  But some cities, including just about all the big ones on the west coast, allow for something called "Sanctuary" to exist in their cities, because they believe that it is cruel and wrong to deport these individuals, regardless of the crime or how many times that they have re-entered the U.S. illegally.

Statistics show that certain felons are very likely to re-offend, but this doesn't matter to the Sanctuary folks.  Who cares if a teenager is shot dead outside a grocery store, or a mother of two is raped and strangled to death on a bike path?  The only thing that matters are the INVISIBLE rights of the foreign national who presence in our country is predicated on the fact that broke our Immigration Law, and has since racked up a few more violations.  No doubt the groups opposed to Amnesty will use every one of these stories as a means to frighten and mobilize the population, but the truth is the truth.  We do have a problem in this country with an outrageously high number of illegal immigrant felons, the majority of which are not presently incarcerated.

Do you know where your children are?

Jabhat al-Nusra: the evolution of Al-Qaeda and the need for conventional warfare.

Link: Tension between Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS in Syria.

We have always expressed the opinion that Al-Qaeda and its representative groups, including Jabhat al-Nusra (JN), were really not that far removed from motivations and intentions of the Islamic State terrorist group (ISIS).  In fact, we have always been surprised and a bit frustrated at the mainstream media's obsession with separating each and every Sunni-based Jihadi group.  No doubt Al-Qaeda and ISIS have done everything they can to perpetuate this idea that these groups work exclusively of each other.  This impression encourages the idea that Sunni-based jihadism is much more entrenched in the Sunni community than it really is.  We have argued that because of their mutual goals, orientation and teachings, that it was virtually impossible for ISIS and JN to be working against each other.  In the last six months, both ISIS and JN have enjoyed tremendous success on the battlefields of Syria, as the regime forces have to defend from almost daily attacks, sometimes from different directions.  Although we have gone to some lengths to illustrate the common ideology and genesis of ISIS and Al-Qaeda/JN, we have never discounted the probability that the groups would have disagreements that might lead to actual violence.  But we continue to strongly believe that any such conflicts would be temporary (and have actually proven to be so).

An interesting trend that we have noted previously is becoming more visible on the battlefields of Syria.  We have discussed in some depth the efforts of ISIS to create an effective conventional military, complete with departments, promotions and letters from home.  We opined that the numerous former Ba'ath Party members who had found a home in ISIS, were useful to the group because of the organizational and planning experience and skills that they possessed.  For a short time it was popular to consider the idea that the Iraqi Ba'ath Party had some level of influence within ISIS, when actually the opposite is true.  These former bureaucrats and armchair Generals of the Saddam regime are survivors, and ISIS just happened to be in the hiring business.  Believe me, it has nothing to do with ideology.

But the need for ISIS to recruit individuals with certain skills outside of bomb-making and decapitation is obvious.  ISIS has created the first conventional terrorist army, and to keep that army supplied and effective, a support mechanism must exist.  Their effort is evolving, and they have met with some difficulties, but their success can't be denied.  We have previously explained the justification for the Islamic extremist cause to pursue a conventional army.  In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the United State Armed Forces proved time and again, that small groups if ill-prepared and inconsistently equipped tribesmen can't defeat a well-trained and well-equipped army and air force (Vietnam was a diplomatic failure but a military success; the American people lost the stomach for daily casualties highlighted by politically-driven new coverage).  In 2009, with the apparent successes in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the decision was made to support the creation of a conventional fighting force loyal to Al-Qaeda, and Syria provided the ideal nursery.  Al-Qaeda in Iraq had relocated from Iraq to Syria (or should I say they had been "booted out"), so the platform was in place.  Fighters were recruited, many from Africa and the West, and equipment was either purchased or purloined from the Syrians.  The group changed its name, probably as a purposeful effort to separate itself from Al-Qaeda and strengthen the suggestion that the region was full of Sunni-based extremist military groups.  The head of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, did move the group away from Al-Qaeda to a certain extent, a move which no doubt infuriated Ayman al-Zawahiri, hold up back in Pakistan somewhere (probably at the Pakistani Intel Service main headquarters), and the link indicates that the two groups are not necessarily coordinating their operations or sharing their battle plans.  This mild declaration of independence by ISIS, forgive the phrase, is the reason JN has become so successful on the battlefield.

Al-Qaeda was the original genesis of the idea to create a conventional military capability to pursue the goals of international Sunni Jihad.  When ISIS began showing  bit of free will, JN, which was in direct contact with the Al-Qaeda leadership and much more representative of the group's most recent persona, began to follow the same plan which proved so successful to ISIS.  JN, although on a much smaller scale, started to morph into a conventional military force.  In the past, Al-Qaeda has relied on its small size to stay mobile, hidden, and able to strike targets and disappear.  JN created a supply mechanism, mostly utilizing its popularity with the local population, that kept its fighters fed and well-equipped.  Personnel were selected for various jobs according to background and training, and formalized planning became an integral part of every operation.  Communications were strengthened, liaison to the local community were chosen by ethnic background and language skills, and as more fighter arrived on the scene, the variety of military hardware increased.  Is it no surprise that JN has been just as successful on the Syrian battlefield lately, if not more, than ISIS.  The one life-line that both ISIS and JN rely on seems to be flowing stronger than ever: the financial support from the gulf states.  This support is not necessarily directly from the coffers of the various Emirates and Sheikdoms (some is), but it is coming from millionaire and billionaire families with loyalties to the extremist cause.  The financial support has increased as of late as Iran and the despised Shi'a stretch their legs in Yemen and Iraq.  No doubt some of these fanatics are expecting to re-fight the Battle of Karbala.

As things stand now, ISIS is a much more entrenched and evolved military machine.  In size and in capabilities, JN can't hold a candle to the Islamic State forces.  But everyday JN grows stronger, and JN has proven to be much more popular with the local communities than ISIS (probably has something to do with the burning of that young Jordanian pilot; families from the Hashemites in Jordan and the rural communities of Syria have a history of good relations).  With JN and ISIS both trying to outdo each other in capturing former regime towns, and the Sunni and Shi'a threatening to start an Islamic Civil War in Yemen and Iraq, the West has a bit of breathing room.  But once JN and ISIS merge, and they will, and the Iranians pull back behind the walls of secrecy they value so much, we will be faced with a tremendous foe.    

Should Iraq be partitioned?

Links: A. Considerations on partitioning Iraq.
           B. The U.S. contemplates partitioning Iraq.


In 2006, then-Senator Joe Biden suggested that consideration be given to the partition of Iraq.  I believe at the time, that the idea was to allow the Kurds a homeland in the north, the Sunni would stay put in the central belt region, and the Shi'a would have an independent state in the south.  For some reason, I couldn't buy into this argument, although for the life of me I can't recall why.  I know that Turkey would have had a proverbial herd of cows if the Kurds had been given a homeland, and the Sunni, who as a minority have always ruled Iraq, would've been forced to accept a smaller and less-wealthy nation, but something else kept me from joining the "pro-partition" partisans.  I think it was probably just an example of the traditionalist in me not wanted to change the maps again.  But we've reached that point again, when folks in position of authority are whispering about partitioning Iraq.  It does piss me off a bit, because this discussion wasn't really necessary.  We could have avoided this position if we hadn't been in such a hurry to get out of Iraq.

Our rapid departure from Iraq was not necessary.  The Iraqis were not requesting it, and our military leaders were strongly advising otherwise.  Everyone seemed to be in agreement that the Iraqi military needed to be responsible for Iraq's external security, but only after sufficient training had taken place.  Its my understanding that the training program that had been approved by the administration hadn't even started before Obama changed his mind and pulled the rug out from under everyone.  So we left Iraq in the hands of an untrained, unprofessional army, with a huge invitation to ISIS to "come on in, folks!"  And they didn't need to be asked twice.  The real tragedy is that Iraq was beginning to settle into existence as a unitary state, with an economy that connected all the various regions and ethnicities.  As its traditional boundaries are drawn, Iraq is fortunate to have natural resources distributed in all parts of the nation.  This fact contributed to the successful re-establishment of an internationally-focused economy.  The presence of the U.S. military allowed for consecutive years of peace, something foreign to many Iraqis.  Markets were open and full of produce, schools were full, traffic lights worked, the electoral process was improving with each election, Iraq's airports were using the designation "international" again, the national soccer team was winning (occasionally), and an Olympic team existed to represent all Iraqis.  Compare those few facts with the situation in Iraq today.  You can lay all of this at the feet of Barrack Obama.  He felt the political pressure from his base to follow through on his irresponsible pledge to rid Iraq of U.S. military forces at the earliest possible opportunity.  And lets face it: the ultimate sacrifice of all those American young men and women....does it mean nothing to Obama?  Peace was achieved and prosperity was at hand, and for politics' sake, he turned success into failure.  His actions did everything possible to encourage sectarian movement amongst the various ethnicities of Iraq. Without the U.S. Army, the only security is with your own kind.  That is the perspective of the various groups trying to survive in Iraq today.

Back to the idea of partitioning Iraq.  First and foremost, its really absurd of the United States to be considering the limits of the national boundaries of a sovereign nation which is diplomatically accredited in the United States and a member in good standing of the United Nations (what the hell is that, anyway?).  Be that as it may, I have always supported the Kurdish independence movement.  The Kurds have played the game so long, and been such good team players, that they deserve the opportunity to govern themselves.  The truth is, Kurdistan would probably exist today as a separate and legitimate nation-state if it weren't for issues regarding oil.  How much oil are the Kurds sitting on, and should it belong to all the people of Iraq, and not just the Kurds?  A specious argument, considering that the Kurds have never benefitted from any of the other oil deposits in Iraq.  Most Iraqis don't consider the Kurds to be Iraqi, even though most Kurds are Muslim.  If Iraq were at peace, it might not be a bad idea to consider three separate nations, one for each ethnicity.  But given the current conflict raging against the Islamic State, its really a moot point.  The good guys are hoping to find a way to keep Iraq from becoming one united nation under the Islamic State, and don't have much time to sit around discussing the viability of a Kurdish, Sunni and Shia separation.

A quick review of the excellent links that I've provided will remind everyone that efforts to create multiple nations based on ethnicity, from the remains of a failed, much larger state (Yugoslavia, for example), have usually not been successful.  I don't know if those examples are applicable in this instance, though.  If Iraq were divided into three nations, the two voices that would be screeching the loudest would be Turkey and the Iraqi Sunnis.  The Turks are paranoid that the establishment of a Kurdish state will eventually lead to an attempt to annex parts of eastern Asia Minor (Turkey), where the Turks constitute a majority of the population.  As long as Erdogan is in office, I'm all for anything that will piss off the Turks, so no problem there.  The Iraqi Sunnis will also threaten to hold their breath until they turn blue and pass out, because they've always been the chosen ones.  The Kurds, the Assyrians, the Shi'a, the Jews, have always had to sit way in the back of the Iraqi bus, so to speak.  Even though Saddam rarely spent money on infrastructure or social projects, when he did, it was for the benefit of a Sunni community.  That explains the abject poverty that exists in the Iraqi Shi'a communities located in the south-central and southern parts of Iraq.  The Kurds, God love 'em, didn't wait around for a handout from Saddam's Baghdad; they created their own economy, and also benefitted greatly from the Kurdish diaspora.  For all practical purposes, Kurdistan has been a self-sufficient nation-state for some time now.  Its just not recognized outside of Sulimaniyah.  The Kurds even have their own military, and as I've commented before, you don't want to pick a fit with the Pesh Merga.  As for the Iraqi Sunni, I don't think they will have much luck finding a sympathetic ear anytime soon.

Under ideal circumstances, It might just be time for serious consideration to be given to the partition of Iraq.  But given the current state of affairs, it just doesn't make sense.  We might be re-writing the boundaries of a nation that won't exist in 2016.  Lets focus on winning this war first.

Back to the Sunni versus Shi'a, a bit of historical perspective.

Links: A. Wikipedia definition of Sunni Islam.
           B. Wikipedia definition of Shi'a Islam.
           C. Wikipedia's take on the all-deciding Battle of Karbala.

When I first arrived in Iraq, I had little background knowledge on the difference between a Sunni and a Shi'a Muslim.  I assumed it would be similar to Roman Catholics and Protestants, and Heaven knows that those two Christian denominations have had a go at each other a few times.  But receiving an education regarding the Sunni and the Shi'a in Iraq is just as much about observation as it is having a thick book open in front of you.  Throughout Islam (and I'm generalizing; where billions of people are involved, there will always be exceptions), the Sunni have traditionally been perceived as well-mannered and better-educated, which leads to the next logical assumption, that the Sunni are better off financially.  The Shi'a have traditionally been closer to nature; the farmers, the less-educated, less erudite.  I had Shi'a friends in Iraq tell me that regardless of the Muslim country, the discrimination is waiting for you when you arrive, and it will hang around after you leave.  Unlike the historic nastiness between Roman Catholics and Protestants, the schism in Islam has seldom led to large scale violence, at least not until Saddam Hussein decided to gas the Iraqi Shi'a after the first Gulf War in 1991.  As a reminder, the Shi'a of Iraq were under the impression that the U.S. Army was going to finish the job and see that Saddam was retrenched for good.  For some reason, they believed that if they participated in the fighting against Saddam's Army, that George Bush and the Americans would support their effort.  The reality is, they received no support and Saddam used what air power he had available, followed up by T-72s, to gas and crush the Shi'a rebellion.  It was never a fair fight, and as much as it pains me to say this, I can't help but believe that we let those people down.

But the cleft in Islam that leaves the Sunni on one side and the Shi'a on the other, is something much more ingrained than political differences.  Many Sunni believe that they are intellectually superior to the Shi'a.  This idea has been regurgitated for years, and resulted in Sunni communities being built in nicer locations, with nicer homes, better schools, and a better social support network.  In Iraq prior to Saddam, the House of Hashim was Sunni, and it was business as usual.  Saddam Hussein was very much a Sunni, being from Tikrit, and most of the development that occurred during his reign went into the Sunni community, Baghdad and Anbar Province in particular.  This attitude has existed for a long time, with some scholars claiming that its genesis was  the Battle of Karbala, between the small group of supporters of Hussein ibn Ali, grandson of the Prophet and the son of Ali, and the army sent by the ruling Ummayid Caliph Yazid I.  The Shi'a of 2015 consider the date of this battle, the 10th Muharram in the year 61 AH (Anno Hijra, meaning after the departure of the Prophet and his followers from Mecca to Medina) in the Arabic calendar, and October 680 AD in the west, to be a day of mourning and sadness.  If you've ever seen video of large groups of shirtless Muslim men beating themselves bloody with whips and chains, all while slowly marching in step, then you were probably watching an observance of the Battle of Karbala.

We've been speaking about Iraq, but the issue transcends national boundaries.  The Shi'a Houthi in Yemen were so frustrated with years of discrimination that they violently removed the Sunni government.  For centuries the Houthi of Yemen were subjected to discrimination, which manifested itself in 2015 as lack of access to good jobs, entrance into secondary education, and promotion in the civil service and the military.  This glass ceiling exists for Shi'a in most if not all Muslim countries with a Sunni majority (and a few with a Shi'a majority).  The point being, the Shi'a Muslims of the world have a chip on their shoulder, and they have reason to be pissed.  On the other side of the coin, the Sunni have to be concerned, especially after events in Yemen and Iraq.  Everyone is quick to blame Iran, but I think this has as much to do with indigenous frustration than any agitation provided by Tehran.  In fact, I think the Iranians have really dropped the ball when it comes to supporting their fellow Shi'a.  Iraq is a prime example.  The current Iraqi government is pro-Shi'a, the Badr Corps and other Shi'a militias are fighting alongside the Iraqi Army, and the Americans, who have always been a last resort of friendship for the Sunni, are nowhere to be found (at least not in a military sense).  The Sunni of Anbar, Diyala, and Salah al-Din Provinces, along with the Sunni of Baghdad, have no savior at the moment.

For all its nastiness, Daesh is a Sunni movement.  As they continue to occupy Sunni communities in Iraq, I can assure you that they are telling horror stories about what will happen if the Shi'a take over.  What little bit of deference that the Sunnis enjoyed over the Shi'a in the hell hole known as Iraq, will be ever.  In fact, Daesh will tell the residents of Fallujah, Ramadi and Habaniyah that the Shi'a will expect a bit of payback.  With the Iraqi Army currently co-opted by the Shi'a militias and laying siege to Ramadi, the Sunnis would be out of character not to consider the advantages of joining Daesh.

The Sunnis of Iraq..what does the future hold? (Part II)

In 2009 and 2010, the future was really looking brighter for the people of Iraq.  The country now boasted of three international airports at Baghdad, Basra and Mosul, and the ex-pat community which was spread out all over the globe, began to make its way back home, with an eye to investing in the new Iraq.  Schools were overflowing and Iraq was refining oil again.  The Iraqi people, Shi'a Kurd and Sunni, celebrated the success of Iraq's international sports teams, and that all-necessary middle class began to make an appearance.  No doubt, a smoother political transition would have been welcome, but it seemed par for the course in this part of the world.  The Shi'a/Sunni political split should have been seen as a hugely negative but predictable development.  In hindsight, the CIA should have created and financially supported a political party that included both well-known and respected Shi'a and Sunni.  But no one was really complaining because Iraq was on the move in the right direction.  So what happened?  Its 2015, and the country is under siege, and the nascent economy that had begun to grow is now in tatters.  The oil refining capability of Iraq, which is its lifeline, is in shambles.  And all this happened because of our rapid withdrawal from Iraq. Is it unfair for me to lay all the blame at the feet of the Administration?  Lets take a look at the evidence:

How can I blame the Administration for ISIS, a terrorist group that originated in Syria?  Wrong -  ISIS originated in Iraq.  After the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the "Great Awakening" (the Sunni movement to oppose Zarqawi and the insurgency), his organization went into hibernation. It eventually found its way into Syria, and took advantage of that conflict to rebuild and rebrand.  This was the creation of ISIS.  No doubt that there aren't many left over from the Zarqawi days, but can it be only a coincidence that the leader of ISIS is Abu Bakr al-BAGHDADI?  Regardless, ISIS found the perfect environment for reconstituting itself and created a new, sexier manifesto.  Since the bad guy in Syria wasn't the United States, a more flexible statement of motivation was necessary.  ISIS identified itself with an effort to unite various nations in the Levant under the flag of a Sunni extremist Caliphate (with Baghdadi as the first Caliph, I assume).  This declaration allowed ISIS to claim all sorts of enemies (the U.S., Europe, Israel, moderate Arab States, etc.), and at the same time, all sorts of support, including money and volunteers.  By the time the United States had just about completed its military departure from Iraq, ISIS was healthy and in a prime position to extend its operations outside of Syria.  Iraq, with all of its internal squabbles and still trying to train and equip a legitimate national army, was a juicy target.  And I'm sure the irony was not lost in the minds of Baghdadi and Ayman al-Zawahiri, post-Bin Laden leader of Al-Qaeda.  The American people can provide Iraq with freedom at the cost of thousands of young U.S. soldiers lives, and everything can be turned to shit with one selfish, stupid, political decision.  We understand that a promise was made during the election to remove U.S. military from Iraq, but why didn't the Administration follow the recommended plan put forth by the Pentagon?  The greatest flaw of this Administration has been its determination to fill every high-level USG job with a political appointee, regardless of experience or qualification.  When you choose this course of action, then it should be no surprise that people with the wrong background are making bad military decisions.  What sense does it make to put Bill Clinton's former Chief of State and a career numbers guy, in charge of the CIA?  Wouldn't you think that the person chosen would have at least a smidgeon of experience with the intelligence community?  Not according to President Obama.  This problem, which will take years to correct, has manifested itself everywhere, especially at the State Department, where under first Hillary Clinton and now John Kerry, Foggy Bottom has now become reactive to world events as opposed to proactive.  We seem to always be about five minutes behind.  It sucks when you arrive on the scene even after Portugal, for goodness sake.

My biggest concern regarding the Sunni of Iraq, is the continued presence of the Shi'a militias and their Iranian advisors.  The Sunni no longer see the U.S. military, unless they just happen to have some business at al-Asad Air Base out in the middle of nowhere, Anbar Province.  Its true that a number of U.S. non-military personnel continue to function in Iraq in support of the central government (and the U.S. government as well, of course), but to the Sunni in Anbar and Salah ad-Din Provinces, this means nothing.  Those Sunni tribal leaders who were so instrumental in 2007 and 2008, well, they are still around, and they are keeping a close eye which way the wind is blowing. Fortunately, His Eminence Grand Ayatollah Ali-al-Sistani is still alive, and seems as determined as ever to thwart any Iranian attempt to use the Iraqi Shi'a to deliver their own country into the hands of Tehran.  The Shi'a of Iraq listen to Sistani, as do the Sunni; as long as he continues to preach a moderate message of peace and unity, I believe that the Sunni will stay loyal to the government in Baghdad.  But once Sistani dies, and reactionary Shi'a cleric Muqtadah al-Sadr becomes the titular head of Iraq's Shi'a, then all bets are off.  Sadr is poised to take over after Sistani (there really is no one else), and he has been cultivating the poor, young and angry Shi'a for years.  Most importantly, Sadr is in the front AND back pocket of the Iranian Ayatollahs in Qom, and this fact is no secret.  If Sistani were to expire, we would have to seriously consider the possibility that the Sunni tribal leaders abandon the Shi'a dominated Iraqi government in Baghdad and throw in with ISIS.  For them, it may be a matter of survival.

The Sunnis of Iraq..what does the future hold? (Part I)

Link: The Sunni of Iraq - caught in the middle again.


Although plenty of Iraqi Shi'a and Kurds would disagree with me, I'm beginning to develop a real sense of sympathy for the Sunni of Iraq.  For half of century, they had one of their own running the show in Baghdad, but Saddam Hussein showed just as much disdain for his fellow Sunni as he did for the Shi'a, Kurds, Christians, Jews and Assyrians in his country.  Sadly, though, the non-Sunni Iraqis will forever associate Saddam Hussein and his rule with the Sunni community.  Its the name of the game in Mesopotamia this century.  While Europeans and Americans many times are never even aware of the particular religious affiliation of their neighbors, in this part of the world, it means everything.  Although the Sunni suffered under Saddam Hussein, it is true that a semblance of a middle class developed in Iraq.....and it was mostly Sunni.  Those who were lucky enough to belong to this small middle class had the opportunity to attend university in Baghdad, and following graduation, join the ranks of physicians, architects, engineers, teachers, and businessmen who kept the country from following any further into chaos.  It was no surprise that by the arrival of the U.S. Army in 2003, the Sunni reputation as being the educated and "established" demographic in Iraq, was well established.  It was an easy assumption to make; the Shi'a seemed to prefer living in the south, and engaging in small-scale agriculture for sustenance (with the exception of the half-million or so living in the squalid slums of Sadr City, in northeast Baghdad).  As for the Kurds, well, they preferred to keep to themselves in the north of the country.  In fact, a large percentage of northern Iraq actually functioned for some time as a separate political entity, run by and representing the Kurdish people.  With a "de-facto" capital city at Sulimaniyah, a functioning economic system and large urban centers in Erbil and Mosul, the Kurds were able to demonstrate to the world, just how ready they were an independent state.  But Turkey absolutely refused to sign-off on the idea, as they always had and probably always will.

The Sunni are spread out in Iraq, as are all the different ethnicities.  There is a substantial Sunni community in Basra in the south and in Mosul in the far north.  But the Sunnis are the dominant ethnic group in central Iraq, west of Baghdad in Anbar Province, and just north of Baghdad in Salah al-Din Province, including the cities of Samarrah and Tikrit.  With the end of the Ba'ath Party, a great deal of influence was returned to the Sunni tribal leaders and the "Shaykh" system of authority.  The United States was well aware of this development following the ouster of Saddam and the emergence of the Sunni insurgency.  The United States military and CIA (and to a lesser extent, Dept. of State) were able to co-opt the Sunni tribal leaders and bring the Sunni community onto the side of the good guys.  It took a great deal of influence and suggestion (read: money), but in the end, the Sunni rose up against Zarqawi and Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and helped bring peace and stability to their nation.  But for a few years following the U.S. entry into Baghdad, the Sunni were connected to the violence caused by Zarqawi just because of their shared religious affiliation.  And Zarqawi played this to the hilt by sending suicide bombers into Shi'a religious gatherings, and then repeating the heinous act at the funeral for the victims.  For a time, the U.S. had to be concerned that open hostilities were going to break put between the Sunni and the Shi'a.  And all the while, the U.S. is trying to help Iraq stand back up on its feet, by rebuilding the transportation network, repairing the electrical grid, refurbishing the international airport, building schools, repairing refineries, and most important, organizing national elections.  These efforts were confounded by Zarqawi because of his daily use of suicide vehicles.  But Zarqawi went to far.  He was killing just as many Sunni as he was anyone else, and the Sunni were tired of the destabilization and the bloodshed.  This fact was a large factor in convincing the Sunni tribes to support the U.S. effort and defeat the insurgency for good.
 

  

Western Christianity More Determined Than Ever to Self-Destruct

Link: Christians Attacking Christians

"But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another."
Galatians 5:15

I'm sure it happens all year long, but for some reason, I seem to notice it more during Lent.  And there is no doubt I experience it more in the United States than anywhere else.  I'm referring to the obsession Christians have with bashing each other.  Up front, let me say that I have no intention of "being fair".  I promise to be as honest as my life experience's allow.  I will call it as I've seen it.  But first, let's have a look at the Islamic community at war with itself.  At present, the Christian world is being given a front-row seat into the eternal conflict between Shi'a and Sunni Muslims.  Internationally, the Sunni greatly outnumber the Shi'a, and consider themselves to be more enlightened, more educated and more refined.  The Shi'a have endured a type of prejudice within the Muslim community which assumes them to be less-educated and backward.  In the last few decades, the Shi'a have become much more vocal and aggressive, especially in Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon.  The Shi'a Houthi group in Yemen has recently removed the Sunni government from power, and is threatening to draw Saudi Arabia into a conventional conflict in the streets of Sana'a.  All the while, the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) have risen like a phoenix from the ashes, and inflicted repeated strategic defeats on the Islamic State forces in and around Tikrit.  Why is this worth mentioning?  Because for months, the ISF has been equipped and trained by the United States, and the U.S.-led air coalition has been attempting to provide air cover for operations against the IS; unfortunately for the U.S., during these months, the ISF had its ass handed to them.  It was only after Iran provided military advisors and the Shi'a militia became more effective that the tide of battle changed. 

Not surprisingly, Iran has received the credit for this change in fortune.  An "Intro to Islamic Studies" course will teach even the most rudimentary student that Iran is a majority Shi'a nation, and the flag-bearer internationally and diplomatically for the Shi'a community.  The Iranians freely admit to providing support to the Houthis, who were locked in a battle with both the Sunni-Yemeni government and Sunni-based Al-Qaeda, who controls a good part of southern Yemen, along the coast and right up to Aden.  I have recently become convinced that Sunni Islamic extremist groups send new recruits to Yemen to receive training for the battlefields of Iraq and Syria.  At present, the experience to be gained in Yemen is much more similar to Syria than the experience of fighting in Afghanistan.  The established Sunni governments of the Middle East, especially the monarchies, are very disturbed by the spread of Iranian (read: Shi'a) influence and authority, and the timing couldn't be worse.  Any day now, the Obama Administration will announce the successful negotiation of a Treaty with Iran, that allows the Iranians to peacefully pursue Nuclear research.  No doubt the treaty will call for inspections, but something tells me that the Iranians will be inspecting themselves.  So Iran seems to be hitting the crest of a wave, and now the world waits to see if they can successfully surf it on home.

In one form or another, I believe the organized religions of the world are going to have a confrontation.  I am hoping it will be a diplomatic engagement that results in greater understanding and peace in our lifetime.  If we look at the glass as half-empty, then we must consider a major military confrontation with forces that are attempting to forcibly convert the world to (Sunni) Islam.  For practical purposes, the Muslims need to resolve their own issue between Sunni and Shi'a.  But lets take  look at the other side of the coin, the Christian West.  Even though the hearts of Catholicism and Orthodoxy are in Europe, I can't speak for the European Christian community.  I realize that pockets of devout believers exist in Eastern Europe, but let's face it, the European Christian actually seems ashamed of their beliefs.  If Christianity is going to regenerate itself, in light of the potential threat of an organization like the Islamic State, it will have to take place in the United States.  And this is where the real tragedy takes shape.  In Europe, you can't find a full congregation anywhere in France, Spain, England or Sweden.  Young people no longer get married, and the secular aspect of once-Christian holidays now dominate.  Christmas is about Santa Claus and Rudolph, not the Christ-child.  Further west, the Obama Administration appears to be hostile to the American Christian community, but they have been careful in their actions.  The African-American community, which supports this Administration with over ninety-five percent of its vote, considers religion to be an important part of the family and daily life.  So the attacks on Christianity have been subtle and infrequent, except, of course, for the ongoing "Gay Marriage" debate.  But when I take a good look at what is taking shape in Syria, in Libya, In Nigeria, in Yemen, in Pakistan, in Egypt, and in Somalia, I shudder for the future of my faith.  Regardless of what the left and the ACLU tell you, the United States was founded on Christian values.  That is the reason you find God mentioned in the Constitution, and most other legal documents of the time.  The founding fathers were not opposed to religion, they were opposed to a "STATE RELIGION".  But in the last three to four decades, we have allowed this tiny minority of uber-left Christophobes to remove any mention of Christian values from our schools and from any building that has U.S. government affiliation.  The Constitution speaks clearly about a separation of Church and State, which in my mind simply means we cannot have a state religion.  The beginning of the war against Christianity in the United States really picked up steam with the campaign against prayer in school.  The slippery slope has come into play in force, as now we can't pray for no injuries in H.S. sporting events, or allow religious based groups to make use of school facilities (library for meetings for the Fellowship of Christian Athletes) after school hours.  Prepare to spend the night in jail of you attempt to put a Nativity Scene in front of a public school in December.

There is great strength in unity; I know this, and I'm no rocket scientist.  The various Christian denominations in the U.S. are perfectly suited to rising together in opposition to the long-term plans of Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, and setting the needed example.  Where religion is concerned, the American people give generously of their time and money.  We should be able to expect Roman Catholics, Baptists (Southern, et al), Protestants (Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Unitarians, Anglicans), Mormons, Church of Christ, Pentecostal, Evangelicals of all shapes and sizes, Seventh Day Adventists, and whoever I've left out, to come together and meet this threat, united in our faith that Jesus Christ is the son of God, and that he died on the cross for our sins. I guarantee you, ALREADY someone has a problem with what I've just written.  Argh.  Recently, I attended a Sunday service of a denomination that is a bit of a mystery to me.  They spend most of their Sundays in worship, which is great, and they constitute one of the larger Christian denominations in the United States.  And as I listened to the sermon, I heard many things that were familiar to me.  In fact, nothing seemed to conflict with what I had been taught as a Catholic.  But then it happened.  The commentary from the pulpit began to include negative observations about another Christian denomination.  Things got back on track, but then it happened again. During the day, in between sermons and during, I noticed a certain amount of comfort in openly criticizing the beliefs/traditions/practices of other Christian denominations (heck, they probably don't even consider these other groups to be true Christians).  Now I can tell you in complete honesty that in my entire life as a Church-going Catholic, I can't remember the Priest EVER mentioning another denomination.  In fact, in times like these, I think its about time we started discussing Islamic extremism during Catholic services.  But what I heard that Sunday, I've never heard in a Catholic Church, although I'm sure it happens.  There is no doubt that every Christian denomination in the United States, will occasionally point out what the other "Christians" are doing wrong, "according to scripture".  Now if we the opposing side were allowed to defend themselves, no doubt they would interpret that same bit of scripture differently.  Its no big surprise that different people interpret religious text differently.  No one wants to consider the possibility that all along, they've been thinking the wrong thing.  The real nightmare begins when people start arguing about the multiple translations, and should be only translate Aramaic, or also Greek?  Now is the time that I stand up in the middle of everyone, and just scream at the top of my lungs, to get everyone to shut up and listen to me.

When did we, as Christians, turn away from the many things that united us, and start focusing exclusively on the few things on which we don't agree?  All of the groups I mentioned in the paragraph above (well, almost all) agree on the most important basic tenets of our faith.  We believe that Jesus is Lord, and that he is the son of God and that he suffered and died for us on the cross.  We believe in the resurrection; that he will return.  Jesus is God, God is Jesus, and God is Love.  Its wrong to lie, and to steal from your neighbor.  Can we agree on that?  Murder is arguably the worst crime that a person can commit, although rape and sexual assault is right up there.  Are we still on the same page?  The age of adulthood, for legal purposes, is eighteen, and we have a Constitution that we use to guide and protect us in our everyday social interaction with each other.  We abhor discrimination of any kind, and believe a family is the best place in which to raise a child.  See how easy this is?  Am I on the right track?  Our common beliefs are the glue that hold us together, and one day we very well may have that bond tested by the evil we are watching in Syria and Iraq today.  There is no doubt in my mind that both Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State organization are evil.  As such, they will use our own bad habits against us, which include our own intolerance of each other.  "I don't like Baptists, they don't dance."  "Catholics worship false idols".  "Pentecostals speak in tongues and don't translate it properly".  The list goes on, and on, and on.  We have managed to live with each other, to marry one another, and to build families together, all these differences notwithstanding.  And we built this country together.  We are the only ones that can allow for this destructive process to be reversed.  What we are required to do, for the love of our faith, our families and our country, is to search out our commonalities, our special bonds, and when the time comes, we must bring each other close together, so that, united, Al-Qaeda, or the Islamic State, or whoever, will find no quarter here, not as long as they seek to divide.